LI B RAHY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N IVERSITY 
 
 Of ILLINOIS 
 
 977 2. 
 v. 9- o 
 
 HL HIST. SURVEY 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 http://archive.org/details/politicalcareero103murp 
 
THE POLITICAL CAREER 
 
 OF 
 
 JESSE D. BRIGHT 
 
 By 
 
 CHARLES B. MURPHY 
 
 Purdue University 
 
 Indiana Historical 
 
 Society Publications 
 
 Volume 10 
 
 Number 3 
 
 INDIANAPOLIS 
 
 PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY 
 
 i93i 
 
Chapter I 
 
 Jesse D. Bright was particularly fortunate in the character 
 of his parents. They represented that sturdy type of upper 
 middle class people which has been the backbone of all progres- 
 sive countries for ages. He was twice fortunate in that one 
 came from the North and one from the South, thus giving him 
 an unusually fair outlook upon the great national problems 
 which were to confront him in later years. Perhaps this helps 
 to account for his ability to sympathize with and understand 
 the attitude of both sections. 
 
 Senator Bright was a son of David G. Bright and Rachel 
 Graham. David G. Bright was born near Reading, Pennsyl- 
 vania, in 1775, of German and Huguenot stock. Up to the 
 time when he became a grown man and entered the hat-makers' 
 trade, practically nothing is known of him. It was probably 
 about 1784 when he was taken by his parents to Botetourt 
 County, Virginia. In 1800 he married Rachel Graham of Fin- 
 castle, Virginia, and some time later he moved to Clinton County, 
 New York. It is said that the move was made on the advice 
 of De Witt Clinton who was an intimate friend and political 
 associate. Bright served as sheriff of the county for four 
 years. 
 
 In the latter part of 1812 he moved to Norwich in Che- 
 nango County, New York. Here he began a lifelong friend- 
 ship with Thurlow Weed. It was David G. Bright who lent 
 Weed the money to start his first newspaper. Bright was one 
 of the leading citizens of the community. He was elected 
 clerk of the county and was appointed by President James 
 Madison collector of internal revenue. It was here that Jesse 
 
 (101) 
 
102 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 D. Bright was born on December 18, 1812. 1 Thurlow Weed, 
 in his Autobiography, described David Bright as a man "who 
 had seen a good deal of life, and was an intelligent, close ob- 
 server of men and things," 2 so we know that the young lad was 
 to be brought up under the guidance of no ordinary father. In 
 1820 David Bright moved to Shelby ville, Kentucky, but he 
 stayed there only a few months before moving to Madison, 
 Indiana. There he lived for the remainder of his life, excepting 
 for four years spent as United States receiver of public moneys 
 at Jeffersonville. 3 
 
 Of Jesse D. Bright's early life little is known except that 
 he was a boyhood friend of Norvin Green, afterward president 
 of the Western Union Telegraph Company, and that he spent 
 most of his time roving about the new and thriving city of 
 Madison. It is not altogether improbable that his father still 
 held the property he had acquired in Kentucky, and that the 
 family frequently visited there. At any rate Bright had not 
 been a grown man many years before he went to Gallatin 
 County, Kentucky, to bring back Mary E. Turpin as his wife. 
 It was his lifelong friend, Green, who operated the ferry when 
 Bright crossed the Ohio to claim his wife. 4 The Bright family 
 was not long in establishing itself as a prosperous and respected 
 group in Madison, and the men soon took their places as leaders 
 in the life of the community. 
 
 Jesse D. Bright was fortunate in spending his young man- 
 hood in what was then the chief city in Indiana. Madison was 
 the seat of power, wealth, and learning in Indiana during the 
 thirties. The Madison bar was the most brilliant in the state, 
 and Bright, as a young lawyer, was brought into intimate con- 
 tact with such men as Joseph G. Marshall, Jeremiah Sullivan, 
 
 1 For the information regarding the Bright family I am indebted to 
 Charles A. Korbly of Georgetown, D. C, a grandnephew of Senator 
 Bright, and to Lawrason Riggs, of Baltimore, Maryland, a grandson. 
 
 2 Weed, Harriet A. (ed.), Autobiography of Thurlow Weed, Vol. I, 
 p. 79 (Boston, 1883). 
 
 3 Collins, Lewis, History of Kentucky, Vol. II, p. 440 (Covington. 
 Ky., 1874) and information furnished by Lawrason Riggs. 
 
 4 Letter to author from C. A. Korbly. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 103 
 
 and John R. Cravens. His brother Michael, however, seems 
 to have been the better lawyer. The law was simply Jesse's 
 avocation. Politics was his ruling passion, and it was not long 
 before he was the political autocrat of Jefferson County. 5 In 
 spite of the fact that Jefferson County was a Whig county, and 
 Bright a Democrat of the strictest sect, he was elected probate 
 judge of the county in 1834, and held the office for several 
 years. 6 The position of county judge grew irksome after a 
 time, however, and he began to cast his eyes about for a posi- 
 tion which would give more freedom to his talents. He soon 
 perceived that as the United States marshal in Indiana he could 
 build up a real political machine, with proper care and discretion. 
 Accordingly he started his political friends working to secure 
 the position for him. William Hendricks, former governor, in 
 recommending Bright to General John Tipton said : "You may 
 perhaps not be intimately acquainted with Mr. Bright, and I 
 therefore add that he is in every respect well qualified & wd. 
 in my opinion make an excellent officer and one acceptable 
 to the people.'' 7 
 
 After some delay and the exertion of a great deal of pressure 
 Bright received his appointment as United States marshal, in 
 January, 1840. This position gave him every opportunity to 
 exercise his talents, and he made the most of it. His business 
 took him all over the state and he made friends wherever he 
 went. It was a splendid office for an ambitious young man, 
 affording, as it did, ample opportunity for the establishment 
 of a political foundation, and Bright was just the man to make 
 the most of his opportunity. The friendships he formed 
 throughout the state were later to be of great service to him. 
 
 In 1841 Bright was elected to the state senate from Jeffer- 
 son County. Again he carried a Whig county. It was perhaps 
 that element of luck which plays so important a part in the lives 
 
 5 Monks, Leander J.. Esarey, Logan, and Shockley, Ernest V. (eds.), 
 Courts and Lawyers of Indiana, Vol. I, p. 82 (Indianapolis, 1916). 
 
 Q Ibid., Vol. II, p. 786; Woollen, William Wesley, Biographical and 
 Historical Sketches of Early Indiana, p. 225 (Indianapolis, 1883). 
 
 7 Letter of June 14, 1837, Tipton Papers, Indiana State Library. 
 
104 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 of many successful men which came to his aid this time. The 
 Whig party in Jefferson County was split between two men 
 and Bright slipped quietly into office. 8 As a state senator he 
 seems to have been a good party man, and that is about all. 
 Nothing out of the ordinary can be found in his record. 
 
 In 1843 Bright was the Democratic nominee for lieutenant 
 governor as running mate with James Whitcomb. It was a 
 stirring campaign, during which Bright spoke in every county 
 in Indiana, but he felt justified when he and Whitcomb re- 
 ceived a substantial majority. Bright's inaugural speech as 
 lieutenant governor is not noteworthy. It was simply the con- 
 ventional speech for the occasion, in which he promised that 
 he would discharge his duties in a faithful and impartial man- 
 ner, attributed his success in the election to his interest in a 
 class of measures of deep interest to the country, and asked 
 the legislators to be tolerant toward him until he became accus- 
 tomed to his duties. 9 Bright's position as Democratic president 
 of a senate equally divided between Whigs and Democrats was 
 not one to foster tolerance in the opposite party, however, and 
 at the end of the session, on a strictly partisan vote, Bright was 
 denied the customary resolution of thanks for his services as 
 presiding officer. 10 
 
 During the succeeding session the same equal party division 
 persisted in the senate, although the Whigs had a majority of 
 several members in the house of representatives. This division 
 was acutely important in the matter of the selection of a United 
 States senator to succeed Albert S. White, whose term expired 
 in March, 1845. Voting strictly with his party in tie after tie, 
 
 8 Woollen, in his sketch of Bright, attributes this division in the 
 Whig ranks to the activity of the regular party candidate against Sunday 
 mails. A correspondent of the Madison Daily Banner, however, writing 
 in connection with Bright's political maneuvers in 185 1, did not hesitate 
 to charge that in the contest of 1841 Bright had been active in widening 
 the split in the Whig Party before announcing his own candidacy. Wool- 
 len, Biographical and Historical Sketches, 225-26; Madison Daily Ban- 
 ner, July 11, 1851, letter signed Milton. 
 
 9 Senate Journal, 1843-44, pp. 30-31. 
 
 ™lbid., 1843-44, pp. 602-5; Indiana State Sentinel, January 3, 1844- 
 
Indiana Historical Society 105 
 
 Bright prevented the senate from going into election with the 
 house, and blocked the Whig plan to send Joseph G. Marshall 
 to the Senate. 11 
 
 At the next session, with the house majority safely Demo- 
 cratic and the senate again equally divided, Bright himself was 
 chosen to join Edward A. Hannegan at Washington as the 
 junior senator from Indiana. 
 
 The Democrats had been triumphant in the United States 
 in 1844, and James K. Polk sat in the White House as a rep- 
 resentative of the western and southern groups in American 
 life which stood for democracy and expansion. Southern Indi- 
 ana was dominated by this type of pioneers. Among her peo- 
 ple were many blatant, belligerent nationalists and expansionists. 
 In politics the majority were Jacksonian Democrats, loud and 
 boastful, and in religion they were old-fashioned Baptists and 
 shouting Methodists. 12 A large percentage of the people in 
 Indiana at this time were from the South. 13 Their sympathies 
 were with the South in the usual course of events, and they 
 were not above keeping a black man in bondage in a few cases 
 themselves. 14 
 
 As to Bright himself, there is a world of conflicting testi- 
 mony, but by 1845 he seems to have made himself the master 
 of the Democratic Party in Indiana, and to have been an abso- 
 lute boss. His sympathies were typical of his section, and his 
 ideas on national questions were the same as those of the people 
 that he represented. 
 
 Physically Bright was an imposing specimen of manhood. 
 He weighed about two hundred pounds and had a tendency to 
 
 11 Senate Journal, 1844-45, PP- 31, 52, 57-58, 92, 174-75, 229-30, 278, 
 295-96, 443 ff., 498 ff.; Woollen, Biographical and Historical Sketches, 
 pp. 226, 433. 
 
 12 Esarey, Logan, "The Pioneer Aristocracy," hvdiana Magazine of 
 History, Vol. XIII, p. 275. 
 
 13 Layton, Joseph E., Sources of Population in Indiana, 1816-1830 
 (Indiafia State Library Bulletin, Vol. XI, No. 3, Indianapolis, 1916). 
 
 14 On the keeping of bondservants in Indiana, see Lindley, Harlow 
 (ed.), Indiana as Seen by Early Travelers, p. 257 (Indiana Historical 
 Collections, Vol. Ill, Indianapolis, 1916) ; Cockrum, William M., Pioneer 
 History of Indiana, pp. 141-48 (Oakland City, Ind., 1907). 
 
106 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 rugged stoutness. One thought of muscle, power, and grit 
 when one looked at him. He was clean shaven and his face 
 wore a look of imperious self-confidence. Political associates 
 have described him as a man who carried himself with a suc- 
 cessful swing, almost a swagger. Contemporaries are united 
 in declaring him to have been a good friend, and an enemy 
 who knew how to inflict punishment. 
 
 He had natural talents of a high order, but was deficient in 
 education and cultivation when he first went to the United 
 States Senate. He is said to have violated rules of grammar 
 not infrequently in his public speeches, but to have been so 
 earnest in his manner that his words burned into the minds of 
 his hearers. 15 His overwhelming energy and earnestness were 
 great assets in addressing his hearers, and his oratory was 
 that of the circuit lawyer of that time — loud, furious, violent, 
 and heavy with historical comparison and political platitudes. 16 
 
 A paper of the opposition party, which certainly could not 
 be accused of being guilty of overpraise, characterized Bright 
 as being frank and firm in his manner and always showing zeal 
 
 15 A letter written by Bright shortly after his election would indi- 
 cate that he was a man who could use grammar correctly when he had 
 time to think carefully. 
 
 "Washington City, Dec 24 1845. 
 Sir 
 
 I have before me the copy of a letter addressed to you on the 25th 
 ultimo, signed by my colleague and all the members of Congress from 
 our State, requesting you to confirm and approve the agreement made 
 between the Miami Indians and their creditors on the 24th October 1842. 
 
 I desire to say that I cheerfully concur in that request, and unite 
 with my colleague and the representatives in the desire it may be settled. 
 
 The Indians should be removed; their welfare, the interest of the 
 people of our state, and the humane policy of the Gov. all call alike for 
 this. 
 
 The claimants named in that settlement are citizens of Indiana, and 
 I feel anxious to have justice done with as little delay as possible. 
 
 I have the honor to be With great respect your most obt. servt. 
 
 Jesse D Bright 
 Honorable Wm. L. Marcy 
 
 Sec'y of War Washington" 
 
 The above letter is among the Ewing manuscripts in the Indiana 
 State Library. The third paragraph is marked out in the copy. 
 
 16 Woollcn, Biographical and Historical Sketches, pp. 223-24; Monks 
 (ed.), Courts and Lazvyers of Indiana, Vol. I, p. 82. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 107 
 
 and fidelity to a cause after he had once taken it for his. The 
 paper went on to say that whatever quarrel they might have 
 with his political sentiments they always knew where he stood 
 on every delicate question and this was more than they could 
 say of certain other influential members of his party. 17 
 
 17 Indiana State Sentinel, January II, 185T. Reprinted from the 
 North American Independent. 
 
Chapter II 
 
 Mr. Bright took his seat in the United States Senate on 
 December 27, 1845, amid a group of exultant and distinguished 
 Democrats. Through the influence of Hannegan he was soon 
 placed on the Committee on Public Buildings and the Com- 
 mittee on Revolutionary Claims. During the first session of 
 the twenty-ninth Congress, committee service and learning the 
 procedure seemed to occupy most of his time. He did find time, 
 however, to present several petitions from the Indiana legis- 
 lature asking for various internal improvements. His only 
 speech during this session of Congress was a short mild defense 
 of printing pamphlets which contained information of value for 
 the farmer. 1 Bright had his political eye out for popular ap- 
 proval, and shortly after the War with Mexico began he pro- 
 posed an increase in pay for privates and noncommissioned 
 officers in both the regular army and the militia. 2 Aside from 
 this, Bright said nothing and voted regularly and consistently 
 with his party. He supported the Mexican War straight 
 through, and voted "aye" on the Walker Tariff. 3 When, early 
 in June, 1846, the president adopted the plan of consulting the 
 Senate in advance concerning the British offer of the forty- 
 ninth parallel, Bright was not recorded as voting on either side, 
 though Hannegan stood by the "Fifty-four, forty" slogan and 
 voted against the president. Later, Bright voted against print- 
 ing the negotiations for the use of the Senate, which perhaps 
 indicates an inclination in favor of the compromise. 4 
 
 ^Congressional Globe, 20 Congress, 1 session, pp. 693-94. 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 1023. The bill was referred to the Committee on Military 
 Affairs and was reported back to the Senate with an amendment and 
 the recommendation that it not pass. Ibid., p. 1064. 
 
 3 Ibid., p. 1 1 58. 
 
 4 1 bid. (Appendix), p. 1169. 
 
 (108) 
 
Indiana Historical Society 109 
 
 In the short winter session of 1846-47, the Whigs became 
 bitter at the turn events were taking. They denounced Presi- 
 dent Polk and the whole administration policy toward the 
 Mexican War at every turn, whereupon Tom Ritchie, the 
 famous editor of the Washington Union, wrote an article 
 stoutly defending the Polk administration. Mere defense of 
 the administration was not enough. He launched into a stinging 
 denunciation of certain staid gentlemen in the United States 
 Senate, thus calling forth their wrath. They proposed a reso- 
 lution excluding the editors of the Union from the privilege of 
 admission to the floor of the Senate, and a second resolution 
 forbidding them admission to the gallery. The second proposal 
 was withdrawn, but the first was carried 27 to 21. Bright 
 joined most of the Democrats in voting "nay," ostensibly in 
 defense of freedom of the press, actually on behalf of their 
 party paper. 5 
 
 Conflicting opinions about Mexico had so much upset the 
 Senate that almost any senator could lose his temper over the 
 question even though he had had but one or two drinks before 
 taking his seat for a morning session. Men in both parties 
 spent most of the time pointing out the fraud and partisanship 
 rampant among members of the opposition. The likelihood of 
 the acquisition of Mexican territory by the United States as a 
 result of treaty negotiations brought the question of slavery 
 extension to the fore, and discussion reached a high peak of 
 excitement. Leaders from the Northeast cried out that the 
 whole war had been a scheme for the expansion of slavery. 
 With similar bills before the House and Senate appropriating 
 three million dollars for the establishment of peace with Mexico, 
 David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, introduced in the House his 
 famous proviso against expansion of slavery into territory so 
 acquired. In the Senate an amendment of substantially the 
 same sort was introduced by George Upham, of Vermont. 
 Both were eventually defeated, and the House bill forced 
 
 5 1 bid., 29 Congress, 2 session, pp. 406-17, gives the discussion and the 
 vote on the question. 
 
110 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 through without mention of slavery. Bright took no part in 
 the discussion of the Upham amendment, but he and Hannegan 
 joined the southern Democrats in voting against it. 6 
 
 The thirtieth Congress found Bright an established member 
 of the Senate and ready to take his full share in the events 
 which were transpiring. He was now chairman of the Com- 
 mittee on Revolutionary Claims, and ranking member of the 
 territorial committee of which Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, 
 was chairman. The question of great importance before the 
 thirtieth Congress was the bill for the admission of Oregon into 
 the Union. Bright, as a member of the Committee on the Ter- 
 ritories, was in charge of the measure. In a speech early in 
 the session he pleaded that the bill be passed without delay. He 
 said in part : 
 
 In addition to the general obligation to furnish the people of Oregon 
 with a government, recent events, developed in the late message of the 
 President, imperiously demand that we should pass this bill immediately. 
 If we desire to extend aid to our fellow-citizens in that distant region, 
 it is absolutely necessary that we should act promptly. The Indians are 
 in a state of hostility ; they are massacring the white inhabitants ; mili- 
 tary aid is implored in the most pathetic tones. 7 
 
 When Bright finished this speech Calhoun demanded to 
 know whether the friends of the bill were going to support 
 Senator John P. Hale's amendment extending the Ordinance 
 of 1787 to Oregon, Bright assured Calhoun that he was voting 
 against the Hale amendment. 
 
 Bright pleaded, begged, and cajoled but he could not hurry 
 the Senate. The debates were interminable, and proposals and 
 counter proposals were made and rejected. New England 
 would be satisfied with nothing less than the stipulated exclu- 
 sion of slavery from Oregon, and the irreconcilable South- 
 erners, led by Calhoun, would have nothing short of the 
 admission that neither Congress nor the territory could legally 
 
 6 Congressional Globe, 29 Congress, 2 session, p. 555. The Upham 
 amendment was defeated 31 to 21 by a party vote although a number of 
 northern Democrats — John Dix, Simon Cameron, Daniel Sturgeon, and 
 John Fairfield — joined the Whigs. This was offset, however, by such 
 southern Whigs as John Crittenden, Willie P. Mangum, James T. More- 
 head, and Hershell Johnson voting with the Democrats. 
 
 7 Ibid., 30 Congress, 1 session (Appendix), pp. 684-85. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 111 
 
 forbid the right of Southerners to migrate thither, taking their 
 slaves with them. Finally the moderates presented an amend- 
 ment to the Oregon bill through Mr. Bright which appeared, 
 for a time, to be the solution of the problem. 
 The amendment provided : 
 
 That in all .the Territories owned by the United States, including 
 Oregon, New Mexico, and Upper California, which lie north of 36 30' 
 north latitude, slavery and involuntary servitude in the said Territories, 
 otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have 
 been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby forever prohibited. 
 
 There was also a provision for the return of whatever fugi- 
 tive slaves might escape to this territory. This amendment, 
 Bright explained, he introduced because he felt that the Union 
 was endangered if men persisted in their extreme views. He 
 further explained that it was nothing more than an extension 
 of the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific. 8 
 
 Bright's proposal, which was of a compromise nature in 
 that it gave the South compensation for the admission of Ore- 
 gon as a free territory, was speedily dispatched to the House 
 after it had passed the Senate. Time and time again the House 
 defeated the Senate compromise measures, most of which were 
 of the same nature as the one presented by Bright. The House 
 had ^determined to have Oregon recognized as free territory and 
 no compromise of any sort was to be entertained for a moment. 
 At last the neutral members of the Senate yielded to the 
 pressure for an immediate government in Oregon and receded 
 from their amendments, allowing the House bill to pass in its 
 original form. Bright, Hannegan, Breese, and Douglas voted 
 with the antislavery group. 9 The southern group was greatly 
 disappointed at the outcome, since the least they expected was 
 the extension of the 36° 30' line. President Polk considered 
 vetoing the bill, but finally signed it with a written notation 
 that he did so because Oregon was north of 36° 30'. 10 
 
 The question might well be asked — just how important a 
 part did Bright play in the Oregon fight? Was the idea of 
 
 *Ibid., p. 868. 
 
 9 Ibid., 30 Congress, 1 session, p. 1078. 
 
 i0 Ibid. } pp. 1081-82. 
 
112 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 extending the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific original 
 with him, or did he get this solution from some one else? For- 
 tunately for the biographer a few chance sentences in the diary 
 of James K. Polk do a great deal to clear up the situation. 11 
 The moderates from both the Whig and Democratic parties and 
 from both the North and South had been working hard for a 
 solution which would cause the least possible irritation to any 
 constituency when Bright suddenly relieved the tension in the 
 Senate by coming forth with this compromise proposal. Since 
 Bright was a moderate, and as free from prejudice on the 
 slavery question as any man living, it would seem quite likely 
 that he was indeed the author of the resolution. But, according 
 to President Polk's diary, the president himself conceived the 
 compromise idea, and gave it to Bright and Henry S. Foote, of 
 Mississippi, when they called on him one morning late in June, 
 1848. The two senators agreed with President Polk that the 
 extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific was 
 the only practical method of settling the slavery question, and 
 several days later Bright introduced the resolution as quoted 
 above. 12 
 
 Bright's really important contribution to the Oregon bill 
 was the manner in which he fought for its passage in some 
 form — any form so long as it was passed. His diligence and 
 perseverance kept it before the Senate many times when some 
 senator was attempting to bring up a bill of lesser importance. 
 The zeal and untiring effort with which he stood by the bill 
 cannot be underestimated in apportioning credit for its final 
 passage. 
 
 During the second session of the thirtieth Congress the 
 question of the admission of California to the Union arose. 
 As with every other question which touched slavery, acri- 
 monious and heated debate burst forth every time the subject 
 was mentioned. One of the first discussions originated in the 
 
 11 The discussion will be found in Quaife, Milo M. (ed.), The Diary 
 of James K. Polk, Vol. Ill, pp. 504-5 (Chicago, 1910). 
 12 The amendments were all defeated in the House. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 113 
 
 question of which committee should have charge of the bill. 
 The radical Southerners were afraid to trust the bill to the 
 Committee on the Territories which was composed of Stephen 
 A. Douglas, Bright, John M. Clayton, a Whig from Delaware, 
 John Davis, of Massachusetts, and a single Southerner, Andrew 
 P. Butler, of South Carolina. 
 
 Senator John M. Berrien, of Georgia, opened the discussion 
 by arguing that the bill should be handled by the Judiciary 
 Committee since that committee had always taken charge of 
 such measures. Senator Douglas admitted that that had been 
 true in the past but pointed out that the Committee on the 
 Territories was a new one, created in 1844, and that since its 
 creation it had had charge of such questions. Senator 
 Hershell V. Johnson, of Georgia, declared that the Senate had 
 previously determined that matters affecting the organization 
 of a territorial government should be referred to the Com- 
 mittee on the Territories, but the bill under consideration was 
 for the admission of a state into the Union — a technical matter 
 which should be submitted to the Judiciary Committee. 
 
 At this juncture of the debate, Senator Bright arose 
 
 and said that while he was opposed to the organization of 
 
 territorial governments in either New Mexico or California 
 
 during that session of Congress, he did regard the placing of 
 
 the question in the hands of the Judiciary Committee as a 
 
 departure from precedent. He said further : 
 
 Is there a gentleman upon this floor who believes that any bill or 
 proposition having for its object the organization of any of the Terri- 
 tories of these United States, can be passed upon by Congress without 
 an issue made directly as to whether slavery shall not be absolutely ex- 
 cluded? He who comes to this conclusion must have been an inattentive 
 observer of what passed in this Chamber at its last session. This 
 geographical question arose then. It will arise again, and with increased 
 strength. To send this bill to the Committee on the Judiciary is a use- 
 less waste of time, as far as their reasoning and recommendation are 
 concerned. I accord to the members of that committee as large a share 
 of legal talent as belongs to the same number of gentlemen in or out of 
 this Chamber ; but when I recollect that four out of the five members of 
 that committee are from the slaveholding States of this Union, I am not 
 mistaken in saying they cannot present a bill that will receive the sanction 
 of this Congress. 13 
 
 lz Congressional Globe, 30 Congress, 2 session, pp. 46-49. The Judi- 
 ciary Committee finally got the bill, Bright voting "nay." 
 
114 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 This speech is so typical of Bright that it deserves attention. 
 It is vigorous, direct, convincing, and above all it goes to the 
 heart of the question regardless of who is to suffer. Bright 
 was himself a slaveholder, and in sympathy with the institution, 
 but as a practical statesman he knew that a committee composed 
 of Butler, Berrien, James Westcott, Solomon W. Downs, and 
 William Dayton could never give a report on slavery whicH 
 would be accepted by the Senate. He knew that his stand 
 might injure his chances of favor with the powerful southern 
 group in the Democratic Party, but he did not let that stop 
 him — he simply analyzed a situation as he saw it, and let the 
 consequences take care of themselves. The outstanding quality 
 of Bright's political career was that he never straddled a ques- 
 tion — he was always definitely on one side or the other. 
 
 A great deal of Bright's time was spent on matters of 
 routine and detail work. His services on committees were 
 valuable, and he was usually a member of three or four impor- 
 tant ones each session. He was a strict constructionist, and 
 denounced the tendency to create offices for the purpose of 
 political patronage. Examples are too numerous to mention of 
 his speaking and voting against the remuneration of persons 
 whose employment had not been specifically provided for, but 
 it was a question which always aroused his ire. 14 Another 
 question which always brought him to his feet was the usurpa- 
 tion of state rights by the Federal Government. He never 
 failed to denounce the tendency toward national government, 
 just as he never failed to pay a tribute to the workingman who 
 was leading a clean and worthy life. On the matter of pensions 
 Bright was very conservative, and usually investigated cases 
 with extreme care when he was a member of committees deal- 
 ing with such matters. 15 
 
 Perhaps at no other time did Bright show the prophetic fore- 
 
 14 Rright's attitude on this is evidenced by his desire to limit the 
 number of assistants for taking the census. The number of assistants 
 used today is an example of how the abuse has grown. Congressional 
 Globe, 31 Congress, 1 session, pp. 287, 429, 679, 688, 692. 
 
 15 See, for example, ibid., p. 1447. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 115 
 
 sight that he displayed when he denounced the land grant 
 system proposed by Douglas for the Illinois Central Railroad. 
 Regarding this question he argued that permitting the company 
 to take land through the state indiscriminately would be a dan- 
 gerous experiment, and would set a precedent for Iowa, Wis- 
 consin, Texas, and other states of the West. 16 The land grant 
 system became universal in spite of his opposition, but it seems 
 likely he foresaw the dangers lying ahead. A short time after 
 these remarks were made Bright again demonstrated his fore- 
 sight and his independence by voting "nay" on the Clayton- 
 Bulwer Treaty dealing with neutralization of the canal zone. 
 Differences in the interpretation of this treaty proved a 
 handicap to the United States for fifty years, and it was not 
 until the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901 had rearranged mat- 
 ters that we were able to take up the work of building a canal 
 across Panama. The Senate finally ratified the Clayton- 
 Bulwer Treaty 42 to 11 on May 22, 1850, after a month of 
 debate in executive session. 17 
 
 The most discussed piece of legislation during these turbu- 
 lent times was the Compromise of 1850, and it is that to which 
 we now turn. The Senate of the first session of the thirty-first 
 Congress which was to debate the Compromise was perhaps 
 the ablest Senate ever assembled within the history of our 
 democracy. Calhoun, after leaving Tyler's cabinet, had re- 
 turned to the Senate in 1845. Webster had returned in the 
 same year and would remain until President Fillmore made 
 him secretary of state. Fiery old Benton was in his place, and 
 the great Clay was the cynosure of all eyes. Bright, looking 
 around him, could see the faces of Willie P. Mangum, of North 
 Carolina ; Sam Houston, from the Lone Star state ; John M. 
 Berrien, of Georgia: Jefferson Davis, soon to lead the extreme 
 southern group ; Lewis Cass, the Democratic standard bearer 
 in 1848; James M. Mason, of the old Virginia school; Pierre 
 
 "/&«/., pp. 853, 854- 
 
 17 Howland, Louis, Stephen A. Douglas, p. 139 (New York, 1920). 
 Since the debate was in executive session no records have been pre- 
 served, and we have no way of knowing what Bright said. 
 
116 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 Soule, of Louisiana ; Stephen A. Douglas ; and John Bell, who 
 would lead the forlorn hope of the Constitutional Union Party 
 in 1860. 
 
 Four bulky volumes of the Congressional Globe contain the 
 record of this great session. For the most part these able men 
 presented their views in speeches and arguments of great in- 
 genuity and astuteness, but the real work on the question was 
 done by a select committee of thirteen. This committee was 
 composed of the men who were supposed to have the most 
 fundamentally sound judgment on the slavery controversy. 
 Indiana was justly proud when her distinguished senator, 
 Jesse D. Bright, was appointed a member of the committee. 18 
 On the eighth day of May, Clay and his colleagues reported 
 three bills from the committee. 19 The first provided for the 
 admission of California, the organization of territorial govern- 
 ments in New Mexico and Utah without slavery restrictions, 
 and the adjustment of the boundary between New Mexico and 
 Texas. The second was the fugitive slave bill, while the third 
 prohibited the slave trade in the District of Columbia. These 
 measures were defeated as parts of the "Omnibus Bill," but 
 were all enacted later as separate bills, and Congress adjourned 
 in the latter part of September well satisfied with itself. 
 
 Bright spoke only twice during the discussion of the Com- 
 promise, and in each case it was to urge tolerance, forbearance, 
 patience, and justice on the part of the two extremes. 20 It is a 
 pity that none of the records of the committee of thirteen are 
 available since it was in committee meeting that his influence 
 was likely felt. He was a man who could wield a powerful 
 influence in private conversation, but whose public addresses 
 were few. He was one of those leaders whose personality is 
 brought to bear in group discussions around the cloakrooms of 
 the Senate chamber, in a gathering of senators at a game of 
 
 18 Congressiotml Globe, 31 Congress, 1 session, p. 780. Clay, three 
 Whigs and three Democrats from the North, and three Whigs and three 
 Democrats from the South composed the committee. 
 
 10 Ibid., p. 944; Clay, Thomas H., Henry Clay, p. 367 (Philadelphia, 
 1910). 
 
 20 Co7igressional Globe, 31 Congress, 1 session, pp. 956 and 1379. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 117 
 
 cards, or at a social function. That Bright was on the job 
 every minute of the time is evinced by the fact that he was 
 present and voted on all the myriads of questions connected 
 with the Compromise. He was always among the moderates, 
 and could never be swayed by the extremists from the North 
 or the South. 21 In this conservative policy, James Whitcomb, 
 the other Indiana senator, seems to have been largely guided 
 by Bright. That Bright thoroughly approved the compromise 
 measures can be seen by a number of his statements. On one 
 occasion he said : 
 
 Verily it looks as though there are some among us who intend not 
 to be satisfied with any measure or measures that have the appearance of 
 a compromise. And, sir, if the extremes of this Union have made up 
 their minds to this course, it remains to be seen whether there be enough 
 of us left willing to take a great middle conservative course, and settle 
 pending controversies, or whether these exciting, distracting, mischievous 
 questions, that have shaken the institutions of this country to their 
 centre, shall remain open, increasing the means and supplying the ele- 
 ments upon which fanaticism feeds. It is unnecessary for me to say 
 that I claim to be of that number who desire an adjustment of all these 
 subjects upon fair, just, equitable, and constitutional grounds. 
 
 I now endorse it, broadly, distinctly, and emphatically, and pledge 
 myself to our distinguished chairman, whose patriotic efforts in this 
 crisis of our affairs commands my high admiration, that he shall have 
 my humble aid and support throughout the struggle. 22 
 
 In voting for the compromise measures, Bright was not 
 only acting on his own judgment, but in perfect accord with the 
 wishes of his constituency. I mention this because his enemies 
 have since charged him with subservience to southern interests 
 when his own state felt that such laws as the Fugitive Slave Act 
 were wrong. The Indiana legislature had passed a fugitive 
 slave act more drastic than the one passed by Congress. 
 Among other things it provided for a fine of one hundred dol- 
 lars for any person who refused to aid in the capture of a 
 fugitive slave. There can be no question but that the great 
 body of the people of Indiana thoroughly approved Bright's 
 course. 28 
 
 21 For example, see his votes on question in ibid., pp. 1481, 1490, 1784. 
 
 22 1 bid., p. 956. 
 
 23 Revised Statutes of Indiana, 1843-44, pp. 984-85 ; Indiana State 
 Sentinel, November 5, 1850. The following editorial which appeared in 
 the Indiana State Sentinel, October 31, 1850, indicates the attitude of the 
 Democratic press in the state. 
 
118 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 Bright's attitude on the Compromise did, however, arouse 
 opposition from those in his state who had abolition tendencies. 
 Among his opponents was Michael C. Garber, a Virginian who 
 came to Indiana in 1843. He first located at Rising Sun, but 
 removed to Madison in 1849. He was opposed to slavery, but 
 called himself a Democrat. As editor of the Madison Courier, 
 a Democratic paper, he supported Joseph A. Wright rather 
 than Jesse D. Bright, in their struggle for control of the Indi- 
 ana democracy. 24 It must be admitted that it took courage 
 to oppose slavery in Madison as that place was, from its con- 
 tiguity to Kentucky and its immense river and southern trade, 
 almost a southern town, and he who challenged the righteous- 
 ness of slaveholding was a pariah, and could have no part with 
 the dominant wing of the democracy. But Garber did not let 
 this deter him. He denounced the Compromise of 1850 and 
 the Fugitive Slave Law, and in vigorous terms censured the 
 two senators for supporting the measures. This was the rank- 
 est of heresies, and for Garber to proclaim such opinions in 
 Bright's home town was adding insult to injury. 
 
 Senator Bright was the type of man who brooked no oppo- 
 sition in the party and no faltering among followers. Certainly 
 no upstart newspaperman was going to play havoc with his 
 organization. With his usual energy, Bright set up Rolla Doo- 
 little, one of his lieutenants, as editor of a paper called the 
 Madisonian, which was to be a regular party organ. The 
 Courier, Garber's paper, immediately opened fire on the Madi- 
 
 " 'Shot by a Fugitive Slave. — On Tuesday night last, a runaway 
 negro, having stolen a horse in Brown county, Ohio, was pursued by Mr. 
 Cochran, the owner of the horse, joined by his neighbor, Mr. Gilbert. 
 On the party coming up, the negro fired, inflicting a dangerous wound 
 in the breast of Gilbert, and then escaped. — Cincinnati Enquirer.' 
 
 "Escaped no doubt, to seek shelter and protection from those that 
 give aid and comfort to the 'panting slave.' This is the fruit of encour- 
 aging slaves to run away from their owners, and advising them to resist 
 the law for their recapture. This is the beginning of the end." 
 
 Numerous editorials in other Democratic papers, such as those of 
 New Albany and Lafayette, show the tone to have been the same. 
 
 24 Garber, William S., "A Chapter in the Early History of Journal- 
 ism in Indiana," pp. 10-12 (unpublished manuscript in Indiana State 
 Library) ; Woollen, Biographical and Historical Sketches, pp. 480-84. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 119 
 
 sonian, and for a time a spirited newspaper battle raged. Bright 
 used his powerful influence to have the Courier excluded from 
 the legislative halls in Indianapolis. This was in February of 
 1851. 25 In July a Democratic meeting was held in the court- 
 house in Madison, and Mr. Garber was read out of the party. 
 He lingered on as a Democrat awhile, but later joined the 
 People's Party, and eventually became a Republican. 26 
 One of Garber's anti-Bright editorials read as follows: 
 
 ... Is he [Bright] known at all in Indiana, save as an expert po- 
 litical manager and wire worker and straw-puller? as a politician who 
 has grown fat and rich in office, and who has managed to enrich, by the 
 perquisites of office, other members of his family? 
 
 Such is his character in Indiana. How stands it on the national 
 theatre? Is he known in the debates of the Senate as Webster, Buchanan, 
 Benton, or even as a fifth rate Senator? But for the reflected light of 
 the great Clay ... he would have remained "unknown to fame." 27 
 
 Several months after the above editorial appeared in the 
 Courier, a most unfortunate incident occurred. The city of 
 Madison was preparing a celebration in honor of Louis Kos- 
 suth, and a number of men were selected as members of a 
 committee of reception. Garber was to be chairman. A man 
 by the name of Hamilton Hibbs, who was also appointed a mem- 
 ber of the committee, made a public statement that he would 
 rather serve on a committee with a negro than with a man like 
 Michael Garber. The Madisonian printed the statement, 28 and 
 Garber had just finished reading it in the rival paper when he 
 saw Hibbs coming along the street. Garber rushed at Hibbs, 
 calling him names, and striking at him. Hibbs, who was a 
 carpenter by trade, was returning from work when the assault 
 occurred, and thus happened to have several tools with him. 
 He seized a large chisel from among his tools and stabbed 
 Garber several times. Garber was seriously wounded, and was 
 at the point of death for a long time before he finally recov- 
 ered. Hibbs was exonerated since he fought in self-defense. 
 
 26 House Journal, 1850-51, p. 478. 
 
 26 Madison Daily Courier, July 2, 3, 4, and 8, 1851 ; Garber, "Early 
 History of Journalism in Indiana," pp. 45-48 ; Woollen, Biographical and 
 Historical Sketches, pp. 481-82. 
 
 27 Madison Daily Courier, July 26, 185 1. 
 
 28 Madisonian, January 28, 1852. 
 
120 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 But malicious tongues were quick to make the most of the 
 affair. It was charged by the Whigs that Bright was back of 
 Hibbs, and that the whole thing had been premeditated. Inves- 
 tigation has led me to believe that the editorial and the assault 
 were simply an unfortunate coincidence. Bright was not the 
 type of man to have others do his fighting for him. He loved 
 a fight too well himself, and then, too, one must realize that the 
 editorial was not a particularly malicious one for those days. 25 * 
 
 Meanwhile, on January 11, 1851, Bright had been reelected 
 to the United States Senate, his first term having expired on 
 March 4, 1851. Plans for his reelection seemed to be going 
 smoothly until one day, while he was still in Washington, news 
 reached him that Robert Dale Owen, who was also a candidate 
 for the Democratic nomination, had charged him with bribery 
 and graft. The manner in which Bright received this news is 
 symbolic and typical of his whole life and character. He lost 
 no time in idle denunciation of the charges, but rushed over to 
 Postmaster-General James Campbell's office and obtained a 
 special order for a fast engine and a United States mail coach ; 
 then he arranged for the track to be clear all the way to Wheel- 
 ing. Since there was no train from Wheeling to Cincinnati, he 
 was forced to cover this distance in a boat, but he took care to 
 telegraph ahead to Madison and have a special train waiting to 
 convey him to Indianapolis. 
 
 He arrived in Indianapolis in record time without a stop, 
 and after he had a conversation with Robert Dale Owen the 
 political world was rather surprised to hear that Bright would 
 be unopposed in the caucus. 30 When the legislature met to 
 elect a senator it was found that Bright not only received all 
 the 94 Democratic votes, but also 4 Whig votes, which gave 
 him a total of 99 votes to 46 for Charles Dewey, the Whig 
 candidate. 31 
 
 29 Garber, "Early History of Journalism in Indiana," pp. 667-84. 
 30 Woollen, Biographical and Historical Sketches, pp. 226-27. 
 31 Indiana State Sentinel, January 23, 1851 ; Senate Journal, 1850-51,. 
 PP. 135-36. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 121 
 
 Bright was fond of doing things in the proper style, and 
 since he desired to show his appreciation to his friends he de- 
 termined to have a grand levee. Accordingly, he sent invita- 
 tions to more than fifteen hundred people to be at the Masonic 
 Hall for a party on the evening of January 16. Captain John 
 Cain of the Capital House was engaged to prepare the supper, 
 and the Indianapolis band, bedecked in new uniforms, fur- 
 nished the music. The reception was a brilliant one, and Bright, 
 arm in arm with Robert Dale Owen, moved smilingly among 
 the groups of young people who were briskly dancing the cotil- 
 lion. The master had gained another political victory, and his 
 party was well in hand for was it not supporting him in a great 
 social triumph. 32 
 
 After his election Bright returned to Washington, and be- 
 came one of the outstanding Democratic leaders in the Senate. 
 He was the recognized authority on parliamentary procedure, 
 and it was he who made most of the technical motions regarding 
 consideration of amendments, order of precedence of measures, 
 executive session, and similar questions. The Senate demon- 
 strated its confidence in him by electing him a member of such 
 important special committees as those on the Florida Election 
 Case, and the Investigation of the Revenue. 33 In the election 
 of a committee for the Florida Election Case, he received 21 
 votes, while Stephen A. Douglas received but 10. 34 As a mem- 
 ber of the Finance Committee, Bright was given charge of 
 getting the committee report on the Texas debt question ac- 
 
 32 Indiana State Sentinel, January 18, 1851. The origin of Mr. 
 Owen's charges was as follows : Owen was in company with three 
 members of the legislature. One of them, Dr. George B. Graff, said to 
 him, "Mr. Owen, I know you would scorn to offer a bribe to any man, 
 but I could make more between this and Saturday night, by voting for 
 Jesse D. Bright, than I could by my profession in a whole year." 
 
 Later, Graff admitted that no bribe had ever been held out to him, 
 but a friend of his had advised him to vote for Bright because of political 
 advantages he might secure. Graff wanted to go to Oregon, and thought 
 Bright might help him secure an appointment from the national govern- 
 ment. He admitted that Bright did not know him. Madison Courier, 
 February 6, 1851. Reprinted from Delphi Times by request. 
 
 ^Congressional Globe, 32 Congress, 1 session, pp. 11, 2487. 
 
 34 Ibid., p. 11. j. 
 
122 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 cepted by the Senate. His complete mastery of the details of 
 the report was obvious from the manner in which he answered 
 all the questions fired at him, and the simplicity and ease with 
 which he explained the complicated situation is ample evidence 
 of his command of cold, hard, impersonal methods when dealing 
 with business legislation. Seven years in the Senate had taught 
 him to dispense with florid oratory, and to work definitely and 
 efficiently for a good bill. Bright's efforts were rewarded, 
 and the Texas debt question was settled as he had hoped it 
 might be. 35 
 
 It was Bright, aided by Douglas and Cass, who led the 
 Democrats in their efforts to give the government contract for 
 printing the census returns to the firm of Donelson and Arm- 
 strong. 36 The Whigs were emphatically opposed to granting 
 the contract to any specific firm, but wanted the name of the 
 firm left vacant, no doubt hoping to gain control of the Senate 
 and reward one of their group. Of course, their plea was that 
 the lowest bidder should get the contract, and that the Demo- 
 crats were only granting it to Donelson and Armstrong as a 
 reward for party services. The important thing with which 
 this paper is concerned, however, is that Bright was the recog- 
 nized floor leader of the Democrats. He was always before 
 the Senate, moving and counter moving, always dignified, 
 though sometimes caustic. He maintained a certain aloofness 
 and a dominating dignity which seemed to compel silence from 
 his hearers, and when some "hot-head v from the opposition did 
 attempt a sally, he found unsupported oratory of little avail, 
 for he was held strictly to the point at issue by direct and telling 
 questions, and if unprepared was sent back to his seat dis- 
 comforted. 
 
 In the summer of 1852 the much abused Fugitive Slave Act 
 was being vigorously assaulted when Bright arose in his place 
 and said : 
 
 ^Congressional Globe, 33 Congress, 1 session, pp. 1847, 1849. 
 
 3G //?/d., 32 Congress, 1 session, pp. 155-57 passim. Donelson had been 
 private secretary to Andrew Jackson and was now editor of the W ash- 
 ing ton Union, a Democratic paper. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 123 
 
 ... I do not propose now to enter upon an examination of the 
 reasons that existed then, and still exist, for the passage and maintenance 
 of the law proposed to be repealed by the amendment of the honorable 
 Senator from Massachusetts. Nothing I could say would alter his, or 
 the opinion of those fanatics who think and act with him. . . . If I felt 
 that it was incumbent on me to find a justification for my support of the 
 "fugitive slave law," I would, as the Senator from Illinois has just done, 
 point to the Constitution which forms this Confederacy, and say 
 that, ... I shall ever hold myself ready and willing to aid in the en- 
 actment of all laws having for their object the aid necessary to carry 
 into effect every one of its requirements. 
 
 While upon the floor, I must be indulged with one other remark in 
 connection with this important subject — and that is, as to the difference 
 of position of the two great parties in the free States on the subject of 
 domestic slavery . . . the great body of the Democratic party of this 
 country are sound on this question. It is an entire mistake to suppose 
 that any considerable portion of that party of the free States are hostile 
 to southern institutions. Many of them, doubtless, regard slavery as an 
 evil ; but the remedy for that evil they claim no right to prescribe or 
 administer; on the contrary, with one voice, they unite in urging the 
 representatives of their opinions in Congress to carry out the require- 
 ments of the Constitution in good faith. I wish, sir, I could say as 
 much in behalt of the Whig party of this country. If this remark were 
 true of them there would not be enough "higher-law" men to be found 
 to make mile stones of, and we would have peace and quietude here in 
 Congress, instead of the unsound demoralizing doctrines heard to-day 
 from the Senator from Massachusetts. 
 
 ... I should say . . . that they [the compromise measures] are 
 supported by at least nine-tenths of the voters of Indiana. With me, 
 the voters of Indiana unite in opposing and repudiating Disunionists 
 South and Abolitionists North . . . 37 
 
 Bright made few speeches as long as the one quoted here, 
 because his duties as chairman of the Committee on Roads and 
 Canals, ranking member of the Finance Committee, chairman 
 of the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Ex- 
 penses, and member of the Committee on Retrenchment kept 
 him busy when he was not leading the Democrats out of some 
 parliamentary tangle on the floor of the Senate. During the 
 discussion of the question of improvement of rivers, Bright 
 summed up his attitude on internal improvements fairly well 
 when he said : 
 
 There is a presidential election pending — there is a studied effort 
 making to create the impression that the Democratic party, as a party, 
 are opposed to the improvement of all rivers, harbors, &c. This is not 
 
 37 Congressional Globe, 32 Congress, 1 session (Appendix), pp. 
 1123-24. 
 
124 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 true. There is a branch of the Democratic party, . . . and among them 
 I call my honorable friends the Senator from Virginia and South Caro- 
 lina, who oppose all improvements on constitutional ground; ... A 
 large majority of Senators, however, on this floor, of all parties, as I 
 understand them, acknowledge the power of Congress to make appro- 
 priations for such objects, but differ widely as to the extent of that 
 power. I claim to belong to that class opposed to a general system of 
 internal improvement by the Government, but willing to improve objects 
 clearly national in their character . . . 38 
 
 Bright made another significant statement in connection 
 with the bill to extend the provisions of the warehousing sys- 
 tem. An amendment had been offered to the effect that noth- 
 ing in the bill extended the time of withdrawing goods for 
 consumption beyond one year. Bright said : 
 
 . . . My reason for voting against the amendment, and the reason 
 why I shall vote for the bill is, that I think the bill will be one step 
 towards free trade ; and I am anxious to reach that as soon as possible. 39 
 
 It was during the first session of the thirty-third Congress 
 that the Nebraska question was debated. In spite of the fact 
 that the Democrats had made a clean sweep of the election in 
 1852 on the plea of maintenance of the status quo, they had 
 not been in office long before Douglas, with the sanction of 
 President Pierce, introduced his Nebraska bill. The bill sim- 
 ply gave to the settlers of Nebraska Territory the right to 
 decide whether or not they wanted slavery. There was nothing 
 radical or unusual about this since it had been done previously 
 in the case of Utah and New Mexico, but the aggressive oppo- 
 nents of the extension of slavery had been so certain that 
 Nebraska would come in free that they now raised a great hue 
 and cry. In spite of the opposition, the Democrats put the 
 proposition over in the form of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, 
 which left Kansas open to slavery. Bright did not speak on 
 the bill, although he approved its passage. 40 
 
 When the second session of the thirty-third Congress as- 
 sembled in December, 1854, the Senate was ready to reward 
 Bright for his services. The first act of importance performed 
 by the new Senate was to elect him president pro tempore. The 
 
 ^Congressional Globe, 32 Congress, 1 session (Appendix), p. 993. 
 39 Ibid., 32 Congress, 2 session, p. 501. 
 *°Ibid., 33 Congress, 1 session, p. 532. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 125 
 
 vote was rather scattered, but Bright received 24 votes while 
 Salmon P. Chase, his nearest competitor, received only 6. 41 
 Sumner and Seward worked against Bright, though quietly, 
 and Seward made a speech in which he was careful to point 
 out that the recipient of the office stood a very good chance of 
 being president of the United States since William R. King, 
 the vice-president, had died. James A. Bayard, John B. Weller, 
 and John Pettit worked as lieutenants for Bright, and helped 
 bring the doubtful ones into line for him. He took the position 
 seriously, and was always scrupulously just in the decisions 
 he rendered regarding ordinary business, and in his decisions 
 when individual members were involved. If he seemed a bit 
 partisan when party benefits could be gained, one must remem- 
 ber that in those days it was a common practice for the presid- 
 ing officer to use his position for the advantage of his party. 
 In judging individuals one should bear in mind the practice 
 which is general at the time under consideration. It is inter- 
 esting to note that Charles Sumner received not a single com- 
 mittee appointment during Bright's whole term as president 
 pro tern. 42 
 
 41 Ibid., 33 Congress, 2 session, p. 4. 
 
 42 Woollen, Biographical and Historical Sketches, p. 228. 
 
Chapter III 
 
 The country received the news of the passage of the Kansas- 
 Nebraska Act with a storm of protest. All the groups who 
 were in any way dissatisfied with the administration, or with the 
 status of slavery under the provisions of the bill rallied to the 
 standard of the new Republican Party. Abolition meetings 
 were held in hundreds of northern counties, while bonfires and 
 barbecues attested the fervor of the new group. 1 By the fall of 
 1856 the Republicans were arrayed for battle, and furthermore 
 they had a thorough organization which had gained confidence 
 by numerous victories in local skirmishes. The trained legions 
 of the old Democracy, under veteran leaders of many a cam- 
 paign, withstood the assault as best they could, but they could 
 carry only five northern states for Buchanan and Breckinridge. 
 Indiana was one of these states, but the election had been close. 
 Southern Indiana stood by the old party of Jefferson and Jack- 
 son, but the northern part of the state deserted to the Repub- 
 licans by whole counties. 2 
 
 One of the results of this close election in Indiana was a di- 
 vided legislature in 1857. The state house of representatives was 
 
 ^Various Democratic county meetings in Indiana gave a vote of 
 confidence to the senators who supported the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. 
 In general, the Whig press in Indiana opposed the bill, and the Demo- 
 cratic press favored it. The Sentinel, on April 24, 1854, went so far 
 as to say, ". . . we feel certain that the People of Indiana will uphold the 
 great principle and prostrate its enemies, and the enemies of State Rights 
 in the dust." 
 
 However, the people of Indiana, as a whole, did not support the bill 
 and only two members of Congress who voted for it were returned in 
 the elections of 1854. Kettleborough, Charles, "Indiana on the Eve of 
 the Civil War," p. 144, in Indiana Historical Society Publications, Vol. 
 VI, No. 1 ; Indiana Magazine of History, Vol. XIII, pp. 224-47 ; Vol. 
 XVIII, pp. 61-78. 
 
 2 Esarey, Logan, History of Indiana, Vol. II, pp. 289-91 (Fort Wayne, 
 1924) ; Stanwood, Edward, A History of the Presidency from 1788 to 
 1897, Vol. I, p. 276 (Boston and New York, 1912). 
 
 (126) 
 
Indiana Historical Society 127 
 
 Democratic, but the senate was slightly Republican, the former 
 having a majority on joint ballot. When the legislature met 
 there was difficulty about the election of United States sena- 
 tors. 3 The Republicans decided to try the tactics used by the 
 Democrats in 1844 and 1855 and refused to go into joint 
 session for the election. The situation was further complicated 
 by differences within the state Democratic Party, one wing of 
 which followed Bright, while the other acknowledged the 
 leadership of Governor Joseph A. Wright. Both wanted the 
 senatorship. Apparently an agreement was reached under 
 which Wright consented to leave the senatorship to Bright on 
 condition that he, Wright, receive the Democratic recommenda- 
 tion for an important post under Buchanan. Thereupon, the 
 Democratic legislators held a caucus and agreed to nominate 
 Bright and Graham N. Fitch. The Democratic members of 
 both houses met in joint convention and formally nominated 
 the two men, each receiving eighty-three votes, a majority of 
 the total number possible. The Republicans promptly pro- 
 tested that since the joint convention had not been attended by 
 all members of the senate, there was technically no election, 4 
 but Bright and Fitch were fortified by the opinion of a com- 
 mittee of prominent Indiana lawyers that an election so con- 
 ducted was perfectly legal. It was pointed out that a joint 
 session loses legislative character, and that a quorum from each 
 house is unnecessary under such conditions, a bare majority of 
 the joint session's total membership being sufficient to control. 5 
 
 3 The term of John Pettit, who was filling out James Whitcomb's 
 term, expired on March 4, 1855. The senate of 1855 was evenly divided 
 hut the house was Republican by a slight majority. The Democrats in 
 the senate declined going into joint session for the election of a United 
 States senator and for two years Indiana was represented by only one 
 senator at Washington. Senate Journal, 1855, pp. 10, 66, 84-85, 105-6, 
 520-23. 
 
 *House Journal, 1857, pp. 395-97, 398-400; Kettleborough, "Indiana 
 on the Eve of the Civil War,' pp. 147-48. 
 
 6 Indiana State Sentinel, February 12, 1857. The Sentinel carried a 
 number of editorials on the subject during and after the struggle in the 
 legislature. These give the Democratic viewpoint, of course, but they 
 were representative of what a large portion of the people of Indiana felt 
 regarding Bright and the election. One of them reads as follows : 
 
 "The re-election of the Hon. Jesse D. Bright to the seat he has so 
 
128 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 If Bright and Fitch were safe in so far as Indiana was con- 
 cerned, they were far from it when they attempted to take their 
 seats in Congress. 6 A movement was on foot among the Re- 
 publicans to keep them from their seats. The credentials of 
 Graham N. Fitch were presented on February 9, 1857, and 
 after a spirited debate he was seated. The question of his elec- 
 tion was referred to the Judiciary Committee. Bright's term, 
 under the contested election, began March 4, 1857, and in the 
 special session of the Senate begun on that day, the matter of 
 his election was likewise contested and referred to the Judiciary 
 Committee. During the first session of the thirty-fifth Con- 
 gress, that committee returned a report which stated, "That 
 Graham N. Fitch and Jesse D. Bright, Senators returned and 
 admitted from the State of Indiana, are entitled to their seats 
 which they now hold." The Republicans insisted, however, that 
 since the Judiciary Committee was composed of five Democrats 
 and only two Republicans the report was biased. Dyspeptic 
 Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois, led the assault. He spun many fine 
 arguments, and in the true style of a demagogue appealed to 
 the Americanism of the Senate to "keep out the two claim- 
 ants, illegally elected, if elected at all." Scheming, sly Seward, 
 of New York, and John P. Hale, the ardent abolitionist from 
 New Hampshire, also argued against the right of the two sena- 
 tors to be seated. 
 
 Senators who were moved less by party motives, and more 
 by a sense of the right as they saw it, made a more telling ef- 
 
 ably and honorably filled in the United States Senate, will give great sat- 
 isfaction, not only to the Democrats of the State, but to those of the whole 
 Union. In the recent contest for the Presidency, Indiana rolled back the 
 tide of frantic madness and fanaticism that threatened to overwhelm and 
 sweep away in its bitter waters all the paternal and natural sympathies 
 and attachments which constitute so great a portion of the strength and 
 glory of our free institutions. . . . Mr. Bright has acquired a National 
 reputation alike honorable to his State and himself. He is a man in 
 whom the Democracy of the State can and does repose unlimited con- 
 fidence as one of the ablest and most unflinching champions of the great 
 principle upon which our party is based." 
 
 6 For the discussion in Congress, see Congressional Globe, 34 Con- 
 gress, 3 session, pp. 626, 633, 661, 774-76, 907-8, 1034-40; (Appendix), 
 pp. 193 ff., 385-86, 392-97; 35 Congress, 1 session, pp. 355, 379, 429, 543"45. 
 567-70, 698-710, 720-24, 1658-59, 2353-54, 2876, 2923-49, 2981. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 129 
 
 feet on their hearers. One of these, James Harlan, of Iowa, 
 attempted to prove that a form of rotten borough existed in 
 Indiana, and quoted statistics to show that Boone County 
 (Democratic), with only 2,875 votes, sent two representatives 
 to the legislature, while La Porte County (Republican), with 
 4,817 votes, sent only one representative. 7 While this was per- 
 haps true it had no technical bearing on the rights of senators 
 to their seats. The debate continued through the third session 
 of the thirty-fourth Congress, and well into the first session of 
 the thirty-fifth Congress. Bright's attitude throughout the 
 debate was one of dignity and forbearance. Whenever he did 
 say a word, which was seldom, it was always to ask that action 
 be taken one way or the other since he was embarrassed by his 
 situation. He remained aloof from petty personal squabbles, 
 and made no attempt to challenge the taunts thrown at him. 
 At one time he arose and said : 
 
 . . . Entertaining not a particle of doubt about the validity of the elec- 
 tion under which I hold my seat, I hear with impatience, I confess, an 
 allusion from any quarter which questions that right; and nothing but 
 an unwillingness to obtrude myself upon a body that I have the profound 
 respect for that I have for this has prevented me from making a personal 
 appeal to Senators to take up and dispose of my case at least. 8 
 
 Finally, after a long-drawn-out struggle, which lasted until 
 June 12, 1858, Bright and Fitch were declared entitled to their 
 seats, but the vote had been close — 30 to 23, and Bright never 
 forgave Senators Douglas, of Illinois, and David C. Broderick, 
 of California, for voting against him. They were both Demo- 
 crats, and had been close acquaintances, and he felt that they 
 should not have deserted him. 9 
 
 The Indiana Republicans did not accept the decision of the 
 Senate. During the special session of the Indiana General As- 
 
 7 Ibid., 34 Congress, 3 session (Appendix), p. 210. This condition 
 was true in a great number of the states of the West since the legislature 
 could not possibly reapportion the states as rapidly as the newer sections 
 were populated. 
 
 8 1 bid., 35 Congress, 1 session, p. 1659. 
 
 9 Ibid., p. 2981. James A. Pearce, of Maryland, James M. Mason, 
 of Virginia, and Sam Houston, of Texas, were other Democrats who 
 voted against Bright, but he does not seem to have resented it from them. 
 
130 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 sembly in 1858, the Republicans had a majority, and in a regu- 
 larly conducted joint session of house and senate, they elected 
 Henry S. Lane and William M. McCarty to fill the vacancies 
 they believed existed. When this measure proved unsuc- 
 cessful in unseating Bright and Fitch, the Republicans con- 
 tinued to pass resolutions protesting against the irregularity of 
 their position. 10 
 
 At the very time of his reelection to the Senate Bright was 
 frequently mentioned as a probable member of President James 
 Buchanan's cabinet. As the dominant agent in Indiana politics 
 he was certainly entitled to some consideration, for Indiana 
 had been one of the very few northern states, other than 
 Buchanan's home state, to deliver its electoral vote to the Demo- 
 cratic nominees. 
 
 It was generally expected that Bright would be offered the 
 secretaryship of the Department of the Interior. The Wright- 
 Bright controversy flared up again during this period, with 
 Bright's enemies charging that in the pre-election agreement 
 with Wright it had been definitely understood, if not explicitly 
 stated, that Wright's withdrawal as a candidate for the Senate 
 was to be rewarded by a post in Buchanan's cabinet ; that Bright, 
 finding his position in the Senate an uncertain one, had turned 
 against Wright. Bright's adherents, on the other hand, pro- 
 tested that the recommendation of Wright by the Democratic 
 legislators of Indiana had contemplated a foreign embassy and 
 not a cabinet post. 11 
 
 The rights, wrongs, and probabilities of the situation were 
 bitterly argued in the pro-Bright Indianapolis Daily State Sen- 
 tinel, and the anti-Bright Indianapolis Daily Journal. It was 
 known that Bright had made a visit to Buchanan's home at 
 Wheatland, between the tenth and thirteenth of February. 
 Every possible interpretation was put upon that event. 12 After 
 
 10 House Journal, 1858 (special session), pp. 319-24; 1859, pp. 95-105. 
 
 11 Wright was appointed minister to Prussia in 1857, and served until 
 1861. 
 
 12 Robert M. McLane, of Maryland, had an interview with Bright 
 the day after the latter's return from Wheatland. In a letter of Feb- 
 ruary 14, 1857, to Howell Cobb, he says of the interview: 
 
Indiana Historical Society 131 
 
 the announcement of the cabinet appointments on March 7, the 
 following editorial appeared in the Sentinel: 
 
 We have it from undoubted sources that Mr. Buchanan not only 
 tendered a Cabinet appointment to Mr. Bright, but urged his acceptance 
 of it, and this, too, notwithstanding there was a certain opposition to the 
 appointment out of as well as in the State. But Mr. Bright positively de- 
 clined, as he did not think it right to abandon his position in regard to 
 the Senatorial election while undecided, and for the further reason that 
 he could be of more service to his party and friends, in the Senate, than 
 in the Cabinet. 13 
 
 Lewis Cass, of Michigan, became secretary of state, the 
 only representative of the Northwest in the Buchanan cabinet. 
 
 During all these happenings which so greatly affected his 
 career, Bright kept his mind firmly on his duty, and was not 
 idle in the Senate chamber. He was now one of the oldest 
 members of that body, and was repeatedly called on for an 
 opinion regarding parliamentary custom, and not infrequently 
 he was called on to perform little tasks in recognition of his 
 long service. 14 
 
 Bright was still the ardent expansionist, and in favor of the 
 immediate admission of Minnesota. 15 But other and more serious 
 affairs were confronting Bright and the Senate, for Kansas 
 was seeking admission into the Union under several different 
 constitutions. It was the old, old slavery struggle burst forth 
 
 "Bright told me that though he expected his visit to Wheatland 
 would be no secret yet he was unwilling to refer to it or to the matters 
 there discussed in any general way. ... I will make no reference to 
 that part of his intercourse with Mr. B. which had reference to himself 
 except to say that he put himself entirely at ease in regard to all issues 
 made between Douglas and himself in the conversation had between the 
 former and Mr. B., and in regard to his own connection with Mr. B's 
 cabinet, explaining fully to Mr. B. his desire to be left in the Senate. 
 Bright has not changed his own original view that General Cass should 
 be in the State. ..." Phillips, U. B. (ed.), Correspondence of Robert 
 Toombs, Alexander Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 395 (American His- 
 torical Association Report, 191 1, Vol. II, Washington, 1913.) 
 
 13 Indianapolis Daily State Sentinel, March 14, 1857; see also issues 
 of February 18, 24, and 25, and Indianapolis Daily Journal, February 18, 
 21, 24, 25, 27, March 2 and 16, 1857 ; Indianapolis Old Line Guard, Sep- 
 tember 27, i860. 
 
 14 On the first day of the first session of the thirty-fifth Congress, as 
 a courtesy extended to the oldest member present, he was asked to ad- 
 minister the oath of office to Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee. He was 
 also chairman of the committee to inform President Buchanan that the 
 Senate had assembled. Congressional Globe, 35 Congress, 1 session, pp. 
 1, 4. 
 
 15 See ibid., pp. 1299, 1419. 
 
132 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 with increased bitterness, and now there was a young, vigorous, 
 and determined party blocking slavery, and this new party had 
 such strength in Congress as to make matters extremely grave. 
 Bright, now a veteran of fourteen years' experience in the 
 Senate, stood in his place and pleaded for harmony. He asked 
 that Kansas be admitted immediately in order to relieve the 
 national tension, and the national expense. He lamented that 
 the original Kansas- Nebraska Act had not been enough to settle 
 the problem. On the immediate question of the Lecompton 
 Constitution, he expressed himself as follows : 
 
 No objection is made, so far as I can learn, against any provision of 
 that instrument as being contrary to the Constitution of the United 
 States. If there be none such, let those of us, at least, who said in effect 
 that such should be the only ground of rejection be silent. 
 
 The only complaint made is as to the method of the making. Is 
 there anything in the Constitution of the United States which prescribes 
 the mode in which Territories shall be initiated into the membership of 
 States? If there be any such clause my reading has never shown it to 
 me. If, then, the Federal Constitution does not prescribe the manner in 
 which constitutions shall be made, and if there be nothing in the con- 
 stitution now presented which is in conflict with the Constitution of the 
 United States, in all sincerity and candor I ask, how can we, who agreed 
 to make that the only test, refuse to admit Kansas into the Union? 
 
 After discussing some of the constitutional technicalities, 
 
 Bright continued : 
 
 The constitution of Kansas now presented, so far as it conflicts 
 with the interests, or even caprices, of the people of that Territory, can 
 be altered at any time, and in any way, at their pleasure. Nay, more : 
 I hold that if the proposed constitution be obnoxious to the people of 
 Kansas, the surest and speediest way of securing to Kansas a constitu- 
 tion agreeable to her people, would be to admit her to the companionship 
 of States, under the Lecompton constitution, and then leave her as a 
 sovereign power, to adjust her own affairs without interference from 
 any quarter. Once admitted into the Union, the contest loses its national 
 character, (an event which every true patriot should desire,) and the 
 determination of her people will stand as the law and the fact for the 
 youthful state. 16 
 
 Bright ended his speech in a burst of appreciation of Presi- 
 dent Buchanan's policy, and poured a series of compliments on 
 the chief executive's head. 
 
 Eventually, the Senate passed the bill admitting Kansas un- 
 der the Lecompton Constitution, by a vote of 33 to 25, but the 
 bill was defeated in the House. Stephen A. Douglas led the 
 
 ^Congressional Globe, 35 Congress, 1 session (Appendix), pp. 164-65. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 133 
 
 opposition to the Lecompton Constitution and by now his 
 enmity for Bright was an openly discussed affair. 17 It was 
 already becoming evident that men whose opinions were as far 
 apart as those of Bright and of Douglas would never be able 
 to work in harmony. There were almost as many opinions as 
 to the proper method of dealing with the expansion of slavery 
 as there were leaders in the Democratic Party. 
 
 The full extent of the rupture between Douglas and Bright 
 became marked when the Democratic State Convention met at 
 Indianapolis on January 11, 1860, in order to elect delegates to 
 the National Convention at Charleston. The state convention was 
 one of the most dramatic in the history of the party, and the 
 degree of interest was so great among the Democrats of the 
 state that every hotel in Indianapolis was filled to overflowing 
 by the day of the opening session. 18 There were two groups 
 which were diametrically opposed on nearly every important 
 question. The administration group, or those favoring the re- 
 nomination of Buchanan, were led by Bright, Governor Willard, 
 and Daniel W. Voorhees. The Douglas men, composed of the 
 anti- Lecompton Democrats, were led by Lew Wallace , J. J. 
 Bingham, editor of the Sentinel, and Norman Eddy. There 
 were double delegations from several counties, and in each case 
 a spirited fight arose over which one should be seated. Every 
 point which might tend to give one side or the other an advan- 
 tage was thoroughly contested. 19 The fight was intensely bitter, 
 and no quarter was given. It was even charged that Bright 
 had brought $8,000 with him from the Treasury Department in 
 order to bribe delegates. 20 This, however, was never substan- 
 tiated. There were 395 delegates at the convention, and it was 
 impossible to predict how a large number of them would react. 
 The senatorial and congressional delegations, the state central 
 
 17 Howland, Stephen A. Douglas, p. 297; Congressional Globe, 35 
 Congress, 1 session, pp. 1264-65. Only four northern Democrats voted 
 against the bill in the Senate. They were Douglas, George E. Pugh, 
 Broderick, and Charles E. Stuart. 
 
 1H Indiana State Sentinel, January 11, i860. 
 
 19 Ibid., January 2, i860. 
 
 20 Kettleborough, "Indiana on the Eve of the Civil War," p. 152. 
 
134 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 committee, and many of the newspapers supported Buchanan, 
 but this "old guard" could not muster sufficient strength to 
 turn the trick. 
 
 The anti-administration and anti-Lecompton group con- 
 trolled the convention and instructed the delegates to vote as a 
 unit for Stephen A. Douglas. 21 
 
 This did not aid in uniting the party. The men who opposed 
 Douglas only redoubled their efforts. The "old guard," led by 
 Bright and Fitch, perfected a Breckinridge organization after 
 the conventions of the summer had shown them that it was 
 entirely possible to defeat Douglas. To advocate the interests 
 of the Breckinridge cause, Bright established a weekly news- 
 paper in Indianapolis which he called the Old Line Guard. 
 Bright was too shrewd a politician to believe that Breckinridge 
 would carry the state; his paramount object was to impair 
 Douglas' chance to the full extent of his ability. 22 
 
 With the Democratic Party badly split, the Republicans 
 swept into power in the state and nation. Just how much in- 
 fluence the defection of the Administration Democrats to 
 Breckinridge had on the result in Indiana can never be ac- 
 curately known. The more ardent Douglas papers charged 
 Bright and Fitch with contributing 20,000 votes to the Repub- 
 lican state ticket. The Breckinridge papers, however, main- 
 tained that Breckinridge men had stood by their party. The 
 truth seems to be some place between the two. 23 In any event 
 it could have made little difference how Indiana voted since 
 Douglas carried only Missouri. Where the epoch-making 
 change might have been was in the Democratic State Conven- 
 tion. Had Bright controlled that, and Indiana sent an anti- 
 Douglas group to Charleston, the convention there might not 
 have broken up, and modern history might have followed an- 
 other course. 
 
 Events moved rapidly following the election of Lincoln in 
 November of 1860. South Carolina seceded in December, and 
 
 2, Kettleborough, "Indiana on the Eve of the Civil War," pp. 150-56. 
 22 lbid., p. 157. 
 **Ibid., pp. 179-81. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 135 
 
 by the first of February, 1861, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mis- 
 sissippi, Louisiana, and Texas had followed in rapid order. 
 President Buchanan felt that these states were acting beyond 
 their rights, but he did not know how to stop them since the 
 Constitution provided no means whereby the Federal Govern- 
 ment might do so. Congress and the country at large was at a 
 loss to know what to do. There was a general feeling that if a 
 state wished to secede it could not be kept from doing so. Only 
 in the South was there resolution and determination. The South 
 did not propose to be dictated to by a sectional party, and its 
 leaders went quietly about the organization of a government. 
 Meanwhile things assumed a more serious aspect ; some of the 
 state governors in each section started military preparations. 
 
 The moderates began to make futile attempts to compromise 
 between the two sections, but none of them produced any re- 
 sults since the radicals on both sides could not agree upon any 
 plan. The most notable attempt was the Crittenden Compromise. 
 In spite of the fact that Bright was a little bitter, since he felt 
 to the very bottom of his heart that the Democratic Party could 
 have prevented the obviously approaching catastrophe if the peo- 
 ple had only left it alone to solve the problem, he gave the Crit- 
 tenden Compromise measures his whole-hearted support. 24 He 
 was an even stronger believer in moderation and in temperate 
 action then than he had been at any time of his career. 
 
 An interesting incident in the Senate chamber during the 
 discussion of the Crittenden measures not only shows Bright's 
 position, but also illustrates the temper of the times. Andrew 
 Johnson, of Tennessee, in a speech on the compromise proposal 
 characterized some of the acts of the southern states as treason- 
 able. This was greeted with applause in the galleries. The 
 presiding officer immediately ordered the galleries cleared. 
 This precipitated a partisan debate between those hostile to the 
 South, and those disposed to be friendly. Bright was moderate, 
 as usual, and attempted to point out that the difficulty could 
 
 24 For Bright's vote on the various phases of the compromise see Con- 
 gressional Globe, 36 Congress, 2 session, pp. 409, 1254-55, 1404, 1405. 
 Fitch, his colleague, also supported it. 
 
136 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 be overcome by adjourning until evening. Both sides opposed 
 adjournment as well as clearing the galleries. When Johnson 
 resumed his speech and spoke of Tennessee remaining loyal, 
 the applause was repeated, whereupon, Fitch, who had taken the 
 chair, ordered the galleries cleared. He also added that those 
 resisting should be arrested. The galleries were cleared. 25 
 
 Incidents such as the one mentioned were frequent, and, as 
 the days passed, the continual clashing between the two parties 
 steadily became more bitter. Virginia, North Carolina, Ar- 
 kansas, and Tennessee seceded, and their representatives in 
 Congress withdrew. The Democrats who were left were few 
 in number. They were a helpless minority, and though several 
 of them, as in the case of Bright, were the oldest and most expe- 
 rienced men in the Senate, they were ridden over roughshod, and 
 their ideas were not even courteously received. 
 
 What was Bright's attitude preceding actual hostilities, and 
 during the early days of the war? He was at first unable to 
 believe that an actual resort to arms would be necessary. He 
 was a firm believer in the old state sovereignty doctrine, and did 
 not believe that the government would attempt to coerce the 
 states, nor was he sure that the states themselves actually meant 
 to stay out of the Union. Later, when hostilities actually began, 
 we find him saying: 
 
 There are three parties here. . . . The extreme wing of the Repub- 
 licans, known generally as Abolitionists, and representing the sentiment 
 of the New England States, are for a war of subjugation, as they term 
 it, and the total abolition of slavery, which they believe can be accom- 
 plished by the march of the Army . . . through or over the States that 
 have declared themselves out of the Union. 
 
 Again, sir, inside of what is known as the Administration 
 party, . . . are to be found a more conservative class, who oppose this 
 extreme policy 
 
 There is still another class here and in the country in favor of fur- 
 nishing the Government with all the aid that is necessary to defend the 
 capital of the United States against any and every enemy that may 
 threaten to assail it, but who are not willing to vote either men or money 
 to invade states that have formally declared themselves out of the 
 Union, until every effort to secure peace and an honorable adjustment 
 has been exhausted. There are a great many who do not believe that 
 all efforts have been exhausted; and I am free to admit that I am one 
 of that number. 
 
 2:, Conyrcssional Globe, 36 Congress, 2 session, pp. 1350-56. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 137 
 
 . . . Avow that this is your motive [to subjugate or hold as con- 
 quered provinces any of the States of this Union, and to declare slavery 
 abolished where it now exists by constitutional recognition] and . . . 
 thousands of the honest loyal men that have come promptly forward at 
 the call of the Government will say : "We will join in no such crusade 
 against constitutional compacts ; we are willing to peril our lives to de- 
 fend that instrument, and unite these States again, but whatever we 
 do must be done in the name of the law, and in aid of the Constitution, 
 not in violation of it." 2H 
 
 This speech not only makes Bright's own position clear, but 
 
 it illustrates his keenness of judgment, and his ability to analyze 
 situations and motives. For a contemporary analysis of con- 
 ditions it is remarkable, and in a few years the fight between 
 the radicals and the administration was to prove conclusively 
 just how correct Bright had been in his summary. 
 
 Bright and the other Democratic members of Congress were 
 frequently accused of being obstructionists. There is some 
 truth in the charge that they did attempt to obstruct much war- 
 time legislation, but they were not moved to do this so much 
 from a desire to thwart the preservation of the Union as from 
 a constitutional objection to the methods being used by those 
 in charge of the Union. One example of this was the attitude 
 of the Democrats on the measure which the Republicans passed 
 creating a high protective tariff on all imports. The tariff was 
 inordinately high, and was totally without precedent — it was al- 
 most twice as high as any preceding tariff, and was the highest 
 one in the world at that time. Because the measure was wholly 
 unscientific and has been the basis of all our tariff troubles since 
 that time it seems appropriate to give the names of the eight 
 men who faced the wrath of the country by voting "nay" on 
 the bill. They deserve recognition. They were John C. Breck- 
 inridge, of Kentucky, Bright, of Indiana, Waldo P. Johnson, of 
 Missouri, Anthony Kennedy, of Maryland, Milton S. Latham, 
 of California, Trusten Polk, of Missouri, Lazarus W. Powell, 
 of Kentucky, and Willard Saulsbury, of Delaware. 27 
 
 Most of these senators were considered by the majority 
 group as rank traitors. It was not for a moment conceded that 
 
 26 Ibid., 37 Congress, I session, p. 193. 
 
 27 Ibid., p. 400. James A. Bayard, of Delaware, and James A. Pearce, 
 of Maryland, were unavoidably absent or they would undoubtedly have 
 voted "nay." 
 
138 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 these men might honestly differ in regard to the methods which 
 
 should be used in solving the difficulties confronting the nation. 
 
 They were insulted daily, and their position in the Senate was 
 
 made intolerable. Before a year had passed practically all those 
 
 among them who had not left the Senate in disgust were being 
 
 charged with some form of treason in order that they might be 
 
 expelled. The majority was ruthless in stamping out the minority. 
 
 Bright's time came on December 16, 1861, when Morton S. 
 
 Wilkinson, a senator from Minnesota, introduced a resolution 
 
 for his expulsion. 28 The basis for the resolution was the letter 
 
 which is here given : 
 
 Washington, March i, 1861. 
 My Dear Sir: 
 
 Allow me to introduce to your acquaintance my friend, Thomas B. 
 Lincoln, of Texas. He visits your capital mainly to dispose of what he 
 regards a great improvement in fire-arms. I recommend him to your 
 favorable consideration as a gentleman of the first respectability, and 
 reliable in every respect. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 Jesse D. Bright. 
 To his Excellency Jefferson Davis, 
 
 President of the Confederation of States. 
 
 Mr.Bright had no comment to make ; he merely asked that 
 the matter be settled as soon as possible. It was referred to the 
 Judiciary Committee, and on January 13, 1862, the committee 
 returned a report that they were of the opinion that the facts 
 charged against Mr. Bright were not sufficient to warrant his 
 expulsion from the Senate, and recommended that the Wilkin- 
 son Resolution should not pass. 29 
 
 The question was debated from time to time during the rest 
 of January and the first week of February. Mr. Wilkinson, in 
 a set speech, denounced those who had in any way aided or 
 abetted the South. He was particularly vicious in denouncing 
 Mr. Bright, who, he said, had betrayed his trust as a United 
 
 ^Congressional Globe, yj Congress, 2 session, p. 89. The Senate 
 expelled three other senators representing states that did not secede. 
 They were Breckinridge, of Kentucky, and Trusten Polk and Waldo P. 
 Johnson, of Missouri. Ibid., 9-10, 263-64. 
 
 29 See their report in ibid., p. 287. The committee was composed 
 of Lyman Trumbull (R.), chairman, Lafayette S. Foster (R.), John C. 
 Ten Eyck (R.), Edgar Cowan (R.), Ira Harris (R.), James A. Bayard 
 (D.), Lazarus Powell (D.). 
 
Indiana Historical Society 139 
 
 States senator. He said he would vote to expel Mr. Bright 
 regardless of the committee report. 
 
 Mr. Bayard replied at some length, and attempted to show 
 the Senate how the letter was a perfectly natural one when one 
 considered all the factors. Bright and Davis were good friends 
 of long standing, and at the time the letter was written a state 
 of war did not exist. Even cabinet members were correspond- 
 ing with their friends in the South. Why should the Senate 
 make so much of such a natural thing? Had not Bright done 
 what any gentleman would do in addressing another? He had 
 simply used the polite form of address which would be used in 
 society, and it implied no more than when Americans call a for- 
 eign nobleman by his title. The letter might have been indis- 
 creet, but it was certainly not traitorous. 
 
 Bayard had scarcely finished before Trumbull and Lot M. 
 Morrill, of Maine, were on their feet demanding the floor. 
 Each made a long speech filled with invective and insinuation. 30 
 As these men and their cohorts talked and maneuvered it was 
 obvious that justice was not their object. They were vindictive. 
 Every little wrong or imagined wrong which they had been 
 forced to suffer under the old regime they were now going to 
 pay back with interest. Was not this a golden opportunity? 
 Here was one of the leaders of that haughty group which had 
 ignored them, and this leader was in their power. They fairly 
 expanded with insolence, and in analyzing their attitude as por- 
 trayed in their speeches it is easy for one to see how these same 
 intolerant men were soon to give their country a great blow in 
 the form of reconstruction measures. 
 
 Charles Sumner, the major-domo of this group, arose in his 
 place to put a final stamp of authority on all the previous de- 
 nunciations. This polished, sanctimonious, and austere apostle 
 of abolition piously reminded the Senate of the sacredness of 
 its duty in such a case as this one. It must purge itself of all 
 traitors, being certain they were traitors, of course. In studied 
 phrase and sonorous sentence, with a due solemnity to suit the 
 
 Congressional Globe, 37 Congress, 2 session, pp. 391 ff. 
 
140 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 occasion, the great son of Massachusetts adroitly compared 
 Bright to Catiline, to Aaron Burr, and to Benedict Arnold. He 
 even recited the history of the United States, and the history 
 of the events leading up to the war as a part of his emotional 
 harangue. 31 The atmosphere of the Senate chamber was heavy 
 when he finished, and senators sat in the darkening room and 
 nodded their heads wisely. 
 
 Henry S. Lane, the Republican senator from Indiana who 
 had contested Bright's seat three years before, could not let 
 propriety keep him from "saying a few words." He prefaced 
 his argument with a reference to the contested election of 
 three years before, merely, as he said, to assure the Senate 
 that no remembrance of the injustice done him then should 
 color his attitude on the question under discussion. After this 
 somewhat dubious introduction, he proceeded with a lengthy 
 speech in which he followed the line of attack begun by his 
 predecessors. Davis, of Kentucky, in an exceedingly bitter 
 speech charged that Bright had supported Breckinridge against 
 Douglas with a clear understanding that he could not be elected, 
 but that Lincoln would be assured of election, and just that 
 situation brought about under which the southern states would 
 secede. 32 
 
 Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, next took the floor. At 
 first he made an attempt toward tolerance and control, but be- 
 fore long he had let his old passions against wealth and against 
 aristocrats get the better of him. From then on his speech 
 was one long denunciation of Bright for being in league with 
 
 ^Congressional Globe, 37 Congress, 2 session, pp. 412-15. 
 
 32 For these speeches see ibid., pp. 415 ff., 432-33. This charge was 
 frequently made against Bright, but there is absolutely no truth in it. 
 His sole object was to defeat Stephen A. Douglas. Bright hated Douglas 
 with undying hatred. That the charge made regarding Bright's reasons 
 for supporting Breckinridge was made after the death of Douglas, when 
 Bright could not properly meet it is an indication of the type of men 
 fighting Bright. 
 
 It was further charged that the entire plan to put Breckinridge in 
 the field in Indiana was the work of the Knights of the Golden Circle or 
 "Copperheads." That Bright was a member of this organization seems 
 altogether probable since most men who were opposed to the administra- 
 tion were members. A letter referring to Bright as a member of this 
 group appears in the supposed expose of the organization by a dis- 
 
Indiana Historical Society 141 
 
 Breckinridge, and the other disloyal men of the Senate. John- 
 son went on to say that even if there were not enough written 
 evidence to convict Bright, his actions and attitudes were more 
 than enough. Bright had begged his southern colleagues not to 
 desert the northern Democrats, but after they had left the Sen- 
 ate he voted against every measure necessary to sustain the gov- 
 ernment in its hour of peril. His whole attitude was one of 
 unconcern as to the fate of the Union. 33 
 
 Bright made a short defense against Johnson's attack, deny- 
 ing that he had ever given a sectional vote, and stating once 
 more his "middle, conservative position, repudiating as well 
 northern as southern isms,'' a policy which he proposed to fol- 
 low in the future as he had in the past. 34 
 
 Not all of the Republicans were so completely under the 
 control of the party whip as to support unjust action. Senator 
 Cowan declined to do so, and in his discussion of the Bright 
 case, said that the whole thing resolved itself down to a legal 
 question regarding the letter. It was either treason or not. 
 Technically it was not treason. Mr. Bright was not guilty but 
 was simply being expelled because he held political doctrines 
 which were not palatable to the majority of the Senate and the 
 country. 35 
 
 Timothy Howe, of Wisconsin, was also more inclined to be 
 fair ; at least, he was calm and dispassionate in his summary of 
 the question. Howe said that he did not believe that the sena- 
 tor from Indiana was guilty of treason, but he was voting 
 against him because he believed him to be out of harmony with 
 
 gruntled member. "... almost before we were aware of it, there was 
 a Secession ticket (that is the proper name) in every state north of the 
 Ohio River, with such men as the Hon. J. D. B. — and D. S. D. — to stump 
 for it. . . ." An Authentic Exposition of the "K. G. C. . . .," by a 
 member of the Order, p. 21 (Indianapolis, 1861). 
 
 The idea that the Knights were behind the Breckinridge campaign 
 in Indiana is not substantiated, however, since many of them voted for 
 pjoDaj siq 10 asuapp ui ajopq ua^ods p^q jqSug *i6S "d ''piqits 
 ~6%-f2$ dd 'uoissas z 'ssajSuo^ l£ '3qo]f~) \Duoissdx6uoj z2 
 for he was concerned more for his reputation as a public man than for 
 his seat in the Senate. He repeatedly stated that he had never conceded 
 Douglas, 
 the right of a state to secede. Ibid., p. 544. 
 
 35 Ibid., pp. 471-72. 
 
142 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 the proceedings, and at a time so dangerous he felt that senators 
 should be in sympathy with the government. 36 
 
 Saulsbury, a Democrat from Delaware, closed an appeal for 
 Bright with the following words: 
 
 . . . reason, justice, and common sense have well nigh fled the 
 land. We have much of the reason of Robespierre, Marat, and Danton ; 
 none of the wisdom of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin. The 
 Mountain reigns, and woe to him who is not of the Mountain. 
 
 . . . Oh ! Justice, what wrongs have been perpetrated in thy name ! 
 Oh! Patriotism, what crimes are sought to be shielded by thee! 37 
 
 Debate ceased rather unexpectedly on the Bright case, but 
 rumors had spread around Washington that a vote was to be 
 taken February 5. It was the central topic of discussion for a 
 week, and on the morning of February 5 the galleries of the 
 Senate chamber were crowded to suffocation at an early hour, 
 and all the available space in the chamber was occupied by mem- 
 bers of the House and those entitled to the privilege of the 
 floor. The interest in the proceedings was intense, and for five 
 hours the vast throng of people sat with unabated attention, 
 awaiting the final issue. 
 
 A few brief speeches were made by several senators, while 
 Bright with a haughty air of unconcern and defiance gazed 
 around at the familiar scenes about him. At length he majesti- 
 cally arose and in temperate and dignified spirit began an im- 
 pressive defense of himself. The speech was powerful and was 
 well calculated to affect any senator who was undecided. 
 
 Contemporary accounts agree that the speech produced a 
 tremendous effect in the gallery, and that at its conclusion, if 
 B right's fate had depended on the popular vote he would not 
 have been expelled. 38 
 
 Even in the cold print of the Congressional Globe one can 
 feel something of Bright's intense sincerity as he made his clos- 
 ing speech. He began by announcing that he did not propose 
 to appeal to any senator to support the report of the Judiciary 
 Committee. He said he merely wished to place himself right 
 
 36 Congressiotial Globe, 37 Congress, 2 session, pp. 559-63. 
 Z1 lbid., p. 539. 
 
 38 My description of the scene is taken from accounts given in the 
 New York Times and the New York Herald of February 6, 1862. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 143 
 
 on the pages of history, or he would not have spoken at all since 
 he was aware that his fate had already been decided in party 
 caucus. He continued by saying that he would not attempt to 
 answer such a formidable array of accusers, and such a variety 
 of accusations. In all his seventeen years of experience he had 
 never seen senators stray so far away from the point at issue. 
 He would feel worse, he said, if he were not convinced that it 
 was simply a partisan attack based on political motives. 
 
 He explained that he and Mr. Thomas B. Lincoln, a former 
 resident at Madison, had been friends for years. He gave the 
 letter of introduction as he had given thousands — without par- 
 ticular thought. 
 
 The language used was purely conventional and unofficial 
 
 and had no partisan significance in view of the fact that at 
 
 that time cabinet members and high government officials did 
 
 not expect a war, but a peaceful solution. He continued : 
 
 From the hour this war actually commenced, I have had in view in 
 every act of my life, public and private, one single object — the reunion 
 of these States. I have not to this hour, with all the clouds that hang 
 upon us, despaired entirely of this result; and there is no sacrifice that 
 one man could make that I would not make to effect so desirable an ob- 
 ject. I may differ with others, not less honest than myself, as to the 
 means to effect this object, but I trust I am none the less honest in my 
 purpose, or devoted to a form of Government that, up to the commence- 
 ment of our present troubles, had conferred more of the blessings of 
 civil and constitutional liberty, regulated by law, than any Government 
 known to history. Every impulse of my heart, every tie that binds me 
 to earth is interwoven with the form of Government under which I am 
 living, and to which I acknowledge my allegiance. 
 
 Bright called attention to the striking contrast in attitude of 
 two men who had spoken on the case, Senators Willey, of Vir- 
 ginia, and Johnson, of Tennessee — men "similarly situated and 
 affected" by "an unnatural war." 
 
 The former . . . did me the justice to say that he had seen noth- 
 ing in my past life that rendered me obnoxious to the charge of con- 
 tributing in the least degree to the deplorable condition of affairs now 
 upon us 
 
 But how different was the tone and manner of the Senator from Ten- 
 nessee. Causes of complaint I know he has ; and I sympathize with him 
 in his afflictions, and would that I had the power to lift the load of 
 sorrow that is bowing him and thousands and tens of thousands of others 
 to the earth. Point me to the road that leads to peace, the restoration of 
 the Union, making us one Government, with one flag, not a star effaced, 
 and I will travel it with you as long as there is a gleam of light to guide 
 
144 Jesse D. Bright 
 
 me on such a path ; and, forgetting and forgiving, I would even consent 
 to take as a traveling companion, with all his heresies, the Senator from 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 . . . Let the country bear witness, that no legislative body in Indi- 
 ana, no conventional action, no appeal from the gallant men of her army 
 have petitioned you to strike this blow ; still, I say, let it come. 39 The 
 decree of that remorseless tyrant, Caucus, has been issued, and I bare 
 my person to the blow, unawed, I trust, even though coupled with the 
 threat of banishment made on yesterday by the brave, gallant, chivalric, 
 polished, classic Senator from Massachusetts. 40 
 
 After Bright finished his speech he bundled up the port- 
 able property on his desk, turned his back on the court that was 
 trying him, and with a defiant stride passed from the Senate 
 chamber. He walked over to the office of the Public Land 
 Commission where his wife awaited him, and hand in hand, they 
 sat awaiting the result of the vote which was then being taken. 
 It was soon announced, 32 for expulsion, 14 against it. 41 The 
 long and useful career of Jesse D. Bright as a United States 
 senator had terminated — it was a stormy end, but it was in 
 keeping with a stormy career. 
 
 The Sentinel, the organ of the Democratic Party in Indiana, 
 in an editorial characterized the expulsion as a gross outrage 
 upon constitutional rights. 
 
 It said in part : 
 
 There is no justification for the act unless it is the highwayman's 
 plea that "might makes right" 
 
 ... A party intoxicated with the possession of power, influenced 
 by political prejudices and animosity, has stricken down freedom of opin- 
 ion and freedom of speech in the person of a Senator. It is of but little 
 
 39 Bright's attitude of opposition to the administration and prosecu- 
 tion of the war was not much, if any, in advance of his party in Indiana. 
 The Indiana Democratic State Convention which met in Indianapolis on 
 January 9, had, by a vote of 431 to 52, passed resolutions censuring the 
 administration. It was the concensus of opinion that a vigorous and 
 unconditional prosecution of the war should not be supported. A usurper 
 had taken away the liberty of speech and of the press guaranteed by 
 the Constitution. One resolution stated, "That if the party in power 
 had shown the same desire to settle, by amicable adjustment, our internal 
 dissensions before hostilities had actually commenced, that the Admin- 
 istration has recently exhibited to avoid a war with our ancient enemy, 
 Great Britain, we confidently believe that peace and harmony would 
 now reign throughout all our borders." Daily State Sentinel, January 
 13, 1862. 
 
 ^Congressional Globe, 37 Congress, 2 session, pp. 651-55. 
 
 41 Ibid., p. 655. Those opposed were Bayard, John S. Carlile, Cowan, 
 Harris, Kennedy, Latham, James W. Nesmith, Pearce, Powell, Henry M. 
 Rice, Saulsbury, Ten Eyck, John R. Thompson, and Waitman T. Willey. 
 
Indiana Historical Society 145 
 
 if any consequence . . . whether Mr. Bright occupies a seat in the 
 Senate or retires to private life; but it is of vital importance . . . that 
 this outrage upon the most valued prerogatives of a citizen . . . should 
 be properly rebuked. 42 
 
 Little more need be said concerning the career of Jesse D. 
 
 Bright. He returned home to Indiana with some thought of 
 seeking vindication at the hands of the legislature, but owing 
 to the small Democratic majority, and the stress of the times it 
 was determined that a less prominent man should be put forth 
 by his party as a candidate for the United States Senate. 43 In 
 1864 Bright moved to Kentucky, where he represented the 
 counties of Carroll and Trimble for two terms in the state legis- 
 lature at the unanimous request of the people of the district. 
 About a year before he died, Bright moved east in order to 
 better manage his extensive coal mines in western Virginia. He 
 purchased a beautiful home in Baltimore, Maryland, where he 
 was residing at the time of his death. Jesse D. Bright passed 
 quietly away on May 20, 1875, as a result of an organic disease 
 of the heart. 
 
 * 2 Daily State Sentinel (Indianapolis), February 7, 1862. 
 
 43 Joseph A. Wright was appointed by Governor Oliver P. Morton 
 to fill out Bright's term until the legislature met. When that body met 
 in January, 1863, it elected David Turpie to finish Bright's term which 
 expired March 4, 1863. Woollen, Biographical and Historical Sketches, 
 p 102.