97%7L6^ Hamilton, Charles Granville Lincoln and the Know-Nothing Movement LINCOLN ROOM UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY MEMORIAL the Class of 1901 founded by HARLAN HOYT HORNER and HENRIETTA CALHOUN HORNER Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement CHARLES GRANVILLE HAMILTON Annals of American Research PUBLIC AFFAIRS PRESS WASHINGTON, D. C. TO ROBERT LEE MERIWETHER AND CURTIS WILGUS Copyright, 1954, by Public Affairs Press 2153 Florida Avenue, Washington 8, D. C. Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 54-5765 C4-H I Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement By Charles Granville Hamilton What voters supported the Republican Party in 1860 who did not support it in 1856? In 1856 the Republicans failed to elect their candidate for President; in 1860 they succeeded. The groups which changed their political allegiance were obviously responsible for the Republican victory. It is strange that practically no attention has been given to this in all the voluminous Lincoln literature. The "American" Party of the 1850's, better known as the Know- Nothing Party, was the heir to the traditional enmity to the Roman Catholic Church which had existed in this country from the beginning of English settlement. The rivalry of England with Spain and France had religious overtones and rationalizations. Patriotism and Protes- tantism were widely assumed to be synonymous and the few Cath- olics in the colonies were generally suspect. During the French and Indian wars there were persistent rumors of uprisings of Catholics and Negroes. 1 The extension of possible Catholic territory by the Que- bec Act helped stir up the colonists to revolution.' In 1777 the legis- lature of New York passed laws against Catholic churches although there was not a church of that faith in the state." Benedict Arnold alleged that the reason for his change of sides was his unwillingness to fight with the French Catholics against English Protestants/ The Federalist Party carried on this anti-Catholic tradition." The Alien and Sedition Acts which that party sponsored were aimed at Catholics and foreigners. Alexander Hamilton was a persistent op- ponent of Catholics; as late as 1802 he tried to organize a "Christian Constitutional" party to unite Federalism and religious prejudice. In 1807 New York Federalists ran an "American" ticket against Catholics and foreigners." The political emancipation of Catholics in Britain revived nativist agitation in this country. 7 The Whig Party inherited and encouraged the Federalist tradition of nativism, and Whigs helped elect the first avowed nativist, John Dikeman, to the New York state assembly. 8 The part that nativist sentiment played in the national elections from 1844 to 1852 has generally been ignored. The Whig candidates in 1844 were Henry Clay for President and Theodore Frelinghuysen for Vice President. The latter was a leader of the American Bible 2 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement Society as well as President of the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions. 9 Since both of these organizations were actively and openly opposed to Catholicism, Frelinghuysen was acceptable to nativists and opposed by Catholics. 10 "Oppose the Pope by voting for Clay" was a campaign slogan of Whigs in some places. 11 "There can be no peace until Catholics are exterminated from this country/' Clay was re- ported to have said. 1 * The nativist vote was credited with the large vote for the Whig candidates which almost elected them. 18 Millard Fillmore, a prominent Whig and nativist leader, publicly stated that the Catholic vote was what had defeated Clay. 1 * Nativist "American Republicans" joined with Whigs to carry the Congressional elections of the Presidential year in New York and in Philadelphia 16 a similar coalition elected three of the four Congressmen from that city. Nativists felt that their opposition to the Democratic Party for its sympathy for Catholics was proven when President James Knox Polk appointed the first Catholic chaplains in the Army and sent a diplomatic representative to the Vatican. 18 The Catholic vote was a major factor in the election of Zachary Taylor as President in 1848." Lewis Cass, the first Democratic nom- inee who did not become President, owed his defeat, at least in part, to the Catholic opposition which he aroused by accusing Catholics in Italy of persecuting people for reading the Bible. 18 This stand made it impossible to keep Irish Democrats in line for Cass. Yet he was also opposed by the nativists, who felt they owed support to the Whig party because it had supposedly lost the preceding cam- paign by being anti-Catholic. 19 Abraham Lincoln, who was active in the Taylor campaign, wrote, "The native Americans are with us." 30 As President, Taylor repaid his Catholic friends by continuing a dip- lomatic representative to the Papacy, an arrangement which went on until the election of Grant, a former nativist. The 1852 campaign was marked by similar sentiments. Franklin Pierce, the Democratic nominee, was personally friendly to Catholics although his home state of New Hampshire discriminated against their holding office. 21 Winfield Scott, the Whig candidate, had been a nativist in 1840, but he professed to have changed his views. 28 He lost the nativist vote by the disavowal of his previous connections and he lost the Catholic vote because of those connections. He ran close in the popular vote, although he carried only four states in the electoral college. Catholic Archbishop Hughes of New York exulted over the election Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement 3 of Pierce: "The universe congratulates the country upon having elected a statesman for president, and for permitting the Unitarian ex-preacher, late Secretary of State, to return to his pulpit, to proclaim that Jesus is not God, and Mr. Fillmore himself to become a village lawyer." Pierce named James Campbell, a Roman Catholic from Philadelphia, as Postmaster General. 23 Nativists who already resented the Demo- cratic appointment of Catholic Roger Taney as Chief Justice found more fuel for their fire. It was during the political confusion of the 1850*8 that the Know Nothing movement emerged. It was frequently referred to as the "Order of the Star Spangled Banner" and the "American" party, but it was best known as the Know Nothing Party, the name given to it by Horace Greeley." The stock answer of its members to questions about their organization was "We know nothing." 26 "Sam" (referring to "Uncle Sam") was a password of the order. Animosity toward Catholic tenets and toward "foreigners" was used to attract political orphans. 86 The organization is reported to have been begun in Baltimore," but it seems more likely that it was founded in New York in 1850.* 8 In New York it was primarily directed against the Irish; in Maryland it was anti-German. 29 There was in the Know Nothing movement some of the rural humor which delights in playing jokes on politicians, but the main purpose of the organization was quite serious. 30 Ulysses S. Grant once declared that he joined the movement only from curi- osity; there certainly were some who had this as their motive. 81 In certain respects, the movement was directed more against Popery than against foreigners. To all indications, it was held together pri- marily by hatred of the Roman Catholic Church. 82 At first it was not clear just where the boundaries of membership were to be drawn. Many Free Soilers joined the Know Nothings because it was distinct from the older parties; some Negroes evidently voted the Know Nothing ticket for the same reason. 83 German Immi- grants who were anti-Catholic ignored the anti-foreign attitude of the Know Nothings. 3 * On the other hand, an Irish Catholic news- paper felt that the Know Nothing Party might do some good if it could keep out of the country atheistic Germans. 35 Many Louisiana Roman Catholics who were opposed to newly arrived immigrants joined the Know Nothing Party, but the national convention disquali- fied them from membership 88 4 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement The Know Nothings, although not as yet formally organized, were credited with the defeat of William E. Seward for Governor of New York because he had endorsed the appropriation of state tax money to parochial schools. ST The Know Nothings led in passing a law through the New York state assembly forbidding Bishops from con- trolling church property, but some of their members were later per- suaded to vote for Seward for the U.S. Senate, even though he had the support of a Catholic bishop. 38 Twelve Know Nothing state Sen- ators and 37 Know Nothing Representatives joined Whigs in electing Seward. The years 1854 and 1855 witnessed a Know Nothing sweep which seemed likely to take the country. Mob violence and persuasive shoemakers awls attached to the knees of Know Nothings may have accounted for some votes, but many of them came from pure preju- dice. 39 The Know Nothing candidate for governor in New York was defeated in a close campaign— probably because he was accused of being a foreigner himself. 40 However, a Know Nothing Speaker and a Know Nothing Clerk were elected to the state assembly along with forty-nine Know Nothing legislators. 41 A Know Nothing- Whig alli- ance carried the elections in Pennsylvania and Delaware. Cincinnati went Know Nothing after a bitter fight. Nine of the eleven Con- gressmen elected from Indiana were Know Nothings, including Schuy- ler Colfax, Oliver P. Morton, and Walter Q. Gresham. 42 Colfax orated, "If I were a candidate for any office, I would tell these paupers and vagabonds, these vile, dirty, filthy, degraded, idiotic foreigners that I did not want their votes." 43 Know Nothings almost carried the South; they ran only 16,000 votes behind the Democrats in this entire section. 44 Their greatest triumph was in Massachusetts, where they elected a Senate composed entirely of Know Nothings and a House with one Whig and one Free Soiler among 376 Know Nothings. 45 Only 34 of these new Bay State legislators had previous legislative experi- ence; the others were workers, teachers, ministers, etc. 46 On the third day of their session they elected Know Nothing Henry Wilson to the U.S. Senate. 47 (Wilson and Colfax, the Indiana Know Nothing leader, were to be Vice Presidents under President Grant, who also had been a Know Nothing.) Massachusetts also had a Know Nothing Gov- ernor elected by a 30,000 majority carrying 63% of the popular vote. 48 In 1855 Know Nothing Governors were elected in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Kentucky; legis- latures of similar complexion were elected in eight states. 49 Massachu- Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement 5 setts had another almost unanimous Know Nothing legislature, this time composed largely of lawyers. 50 In Wisconsin Know Nothings helped elect Republicans who proceeded to abolish the state immigra- tion agencies. 61 Know Nothings carried Texas, Tennessee, California, Maryland, and Chicago, and ran well in most Southern states. 52 A. B. Longstreet, Chancellor of the University of Mississippi, expressed the Democratic view of the period when he stigmatized the growing Know Nothing movement as "night-working, man-serving, party- scheming, office-hunting, stump-speaking, anger-stirring, brother- wounding, church-inflaming." 53 There is little correlation between the counties which voted Whig in 1848 and 1852 and the Know Nothing counties of 1855 and 1856. 5 * In Southern states some planter counties turned from Whig to Know Nothing, but this was by no means true of the country as a whole. Popery seemed more of a menace to New England voters than slavery or a low tariff. 55 After all the victories of 1854 and 1855, it was natural for Know Nothings to anticipate a Presidential victory in 1856. Millard Fill- more, their nominee, was a long time nativist and an actual member of Know Nothing lodge. 58 He lost some votes, however, because, by a coincidence, he was having an audience with the Pope in Rome when he learned of his nomination. 57 As the only candidate without a sectional attitude on slavery, he expected to carry Maryland, Del- aware and Ohio, and all the states from Ohio east, except New Hamp- shire and Vermont. 58 It was reckoned that the backing of one more state with a substantial electoral vote would elect Fillmore. If a close vote threw the election into the House, it was expected that he would be chosen President by Democrats and Republicans who would prefer him to the candidate of the major opposition party. Stephen Douglas, campaigning for Democratic candidate James Buchanan, bitterly denounced the Know Nothings in practically every speech he made. 59 The Republican nominee, John C. Fremont, was accused of being a Catholic and Know Nothing cartoons showed him with a cross because he had planted a cross on Independence Rock in California. 60 Much was made of the fact that his father was a Cath- olic, that he had been married by a Catholic priest and that many of his close friends were Catholics. 61 Nevertheless, some Know Nothings supported Fremont in northern states on the ground that if he carried these states the election would probably be thrown into the House, where Fillmore could be elected. 62 (To secure southern votes in the 6 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement House of Representatives, Fillmore went so far as to declare that the South should withdraw if Fremont were elected.) The election of 1856 resulted in 1,838,169 popular votes for Bu- chanan, 1,321,264 for Fremont and 874,534 for Fillmore; the electoral vote was Buchanan 174, Fremont, 114 Fillmore, 8. Although the Know Nothings carried only Maryland, they ran close in Delaware and Louisiana and held the balance of power in California, Illinois, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio. The Democratic lead over both other parties was only a few hundred in Pennsylvania and about two thousand in Indiana. 88 In the eight salient states in which they either held the balance of power or lacked only a few votes of so doing, the Know Nothings carried 14 counties and constituted the balance of power in 154 other counties. 64 This is quite important because the election of 1860 was decided in these counties; the 1856 results left the Know Nothing voters in these counties in a position to decide the next presidential election. The balance of power of the Know Nothings could also be seen in the Congresses elected in 1856 and in 1858. In 1856 the U.S. Senate had 42 Democrats, 15 Republicans, and 5 Know Nothings, while the House had 83 Democrats, 108 Republicans, and 43 Know Nothings. Seventy of those listed as Republicans had been or were members of Know Nothing lodges. 05 Significantly, the Republicans elected Republican Nathaniel Banks of Massachusetts, also a Know Nothing member, as Speaker of the House, over Humphrey Marshall of Ken- tucky, a Democrat who was also a Know Nothing. In 1858 the Sen- ate had 36 Democrats, 26 Republicans and 2 Know Nothings. 66 After a prolonged deadlock in the House, Know Nothing Henry Winter Davis of Maryland gave the deciding vote which elected Republican William Pennington of New Jersey as Speaker. The Republican strategy for 1860 was clear. It was a Northern party, the first avowedly sectional party. The Federalists, Whigs, and Know Nothings had all commanded sizable followings in the South. The Republican party made no attempt to carry Southern states; it was not even on the ballot in most Southern states in 1856 or in 1860. Republicans were interested only in states outside the South. Republicans had only a marginal interest in the states of the Far West. A similar marginal interest prevailed in New Jersey. The Republican party could not see any majority for itself in these states and it was correct. Due to the closely divided vote in California, Re- publicans were to carry it in 1860; a similarly divided vote, plus the Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement 7 failure to report returns from two counties which went Democratic in the preceding state election, gave them Oregon. Electoral con- fusion was to give them part of the electoral vote of New Jersey, but they did not count on this. In 1860 the first interest of the Republican party was to hold its own in the North. This was the indispensable basis for success. New England seemed sure, although narrow margins in the preceding state elections reminded party leaders that they must hold the Know Noth- ing votes which had come into their fold. This element in New Eng- land was also a good contact to approach Know Nothings in other states. Since Michigan, Wisconsin, and the new state of Minnesota were in effect ideological extensions of New England, they could be relied on. Know Nothings there had integrated with the Republican party; the numerous Protestant ministers, including Unitarians, in the Republican party doubtless contributed to this. Holding their own meant that the Republicans must obtain ma- jorities in the Northern states they had carried by pluralities in 1856— i.e., New York, Ohio, and Iowa. There was slight possibility of victory without the electoral votes of New York and Ohio. If they lost these states, the possible gain of Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Indiana would be nullified. The problem in New York, Ohio and Iowa was to se- cure half the Know Nothing vote in 1856, which would turn their plurality into a sure majority. In New York, their opposition in 1860 had a fusion ticket, making it necessary to concentrate on getting a good portion of the Fillmore vote for Lincoln. The salient doubtful states were Illinois, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. The last was the most important because of its larger electoral vote. In Illinois, Buchanan had not received a majority and the addition of Know Nothings to Republicans could ensure that state for the latter. Buchanan had, after all, carried Indiana and Pennsylvania by only a small majority. A change of 300 votes in Pennsylvania and of 1,000 in Indiana could defeat the Democrats. To do this, the Republicans had to secure practically the entire Know Nothing vote of 1856, as well as to convert some Democrats. Clearly, Democratic votes by themselves would not carry either state without Know Nothing help. The Republican problem of 1860 was simple— to get the Fillmore vote of 1856 in the salient states. A major question at the Republican convention of 1860 was which candidate could get the most Know Nothing votes. This was openly expressed by most leaders. The convention itself met in a building 8 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement called the Wigwam— a Know Nothing term for its council. 87 Buchanan, it was charged, had a majority in two northern states, Indiana and Pennsylvania, only because Fremont had been accused of being a Catholic. The Republicans needed 152 electoral votes to win. They had received 114 in 1856, and needed to gain 38 more. Indiana and Pennsylvania together had 40 electoral votes. The candidate who could gain them was sure to be elected if he could hold the other states Fremont had carried. Fairly widespread was a sentiment to let Indiana, Illinois, New Jersey and Pennsylvania name the candi- date. 68 Since there were many southerners in the lower counties of these states, it was advisable that the candidate have southern connections. In Pennsylvania, a "People's Party" of Republicans and Know Nothings had elected Know Nothing Andrew Curtin as Governor in 1858. 09 Simon Cameron, another erstwhile Know Nothing, pointed out that the 82,000 Know Nothing votes of Pennsylvania must be won over. 70 The 22,000 Fillmore men in Indiana would vote only for a non-radical who was sympathetic to the Know Nothings. 71 The latter had carried Rhode Island for Fremont in 1856, but in the 1860 gubernatorial election their division had almost lost the state for the Republicans. Similar recessions in voters had occurred in Connec- ticut and New Hampshire; while in New York a Democratic governor had been elected in 1859. Republicans and Know Nothings in New Jersey had united in what they called the "Opposition" party. 73 In Indiana, the same union of parties had elected a governor. It was generally understood that the only thing that kept Seward, the indisputable leader of the party, from being nominated was the Know Nothing opposition to him. 78 The Chicago Press and Tribune reported on September 10, 1859: "Without the support of Know Nothings Seward could not carry Illinois, Pennsylvania, Indiana, New Jersey. How are Republicans to elect a president unless they receive these votes?" 7 * On the day that the convention opened, the same paper revealed: "A nomination which will drive the Fillmore vote over to John Bell must necessarily prove fatal to the Republican ticket. Who has the hardihood to affirm that Mr. Seward is popular with the Fillmore men?" 76 Governors Andrew Curtin of Pennsylvania and Henry Lane of In- diana were sure that the nomination of Seward would lose the Know Nothing vote and the electoral vote of their states. 78 Thaddeus Stev- ens insisted that the nomination of Seward would lose Pennsylvania. 77 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement 9 As a persistent opponent of Know Nothings, a friend of parochial schools and of Archbishop Hughes, Seward had no chance of getting Know Nothing votes. 78 In New Jersey, Know Nothings who had run ahead of the Republicans in 1856 and who had elected their governor with Republican aid in 1858, opposed Seward strongly. 78 Edward Bates of Missouri was the formal Know Nothing candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination, but he was too completely a nativist to be named. Well known as a Know Nothing member, he had supported that ticket in St. Louis eight times and he had been chairman of the Whig convention which indorsed Fillmore in 1856. 80 Simon Cameron, another former Know Nothing member, was not a serious contender. Salmon P. Chase, who had been elected as a Know Nothing in 1855, had later opposed the party. 81 This left acceptable to Know Nothings only one candidate who was not too completely identified with them to be acceptable to regular Republicans. Know Nothing support was, then, a major reason for Lincoln's nom- ination. 83 Long friendly toward the Know Nothings, he had worked openly with them in 1848 in the campaign for Zachary Taylor. 88 In 1856, when he was the first Fremont elector in Illinois, he had advised Know Nothing friends in Illinois and Indiana that to vote for Fremont was the best way of electing Fillmore. 8 * Many of Lincoln's old per- sonal and political friends were Know Nothings. 86 Even in his home county of Sangamon, their movement was stronger than the Repub- lican Party. 88 Lincoln himself was actually suspected of being a Know Nothing in spite of a letter of his expressing opposition to them. 87 It was no secret that he would join no fusion which did not include the Know Nothings. 88 He was insistent that their votes must be had at any cost. 88 In 1856 he was careful to be absent from the Bloomington Republican convention which adopted a plank condemn- ing Know Nothings; he had seen the plank before the convention. 80 By 1860 Republicans were willing to back down on this policy; they had no intention of losing any Know Nothing votes in that year's election.* 1 Lincoln maintained that he had never been a member of a Know Nothing lodge, but the record shows that he was a candidate of Know Nothings for the Illinois legislature in 1854. 83 In that year he per- sonally solicited Know Nothing as well as Whig candidates to run for the legislature to prevent the election to the U.S. Senate of General James Shields, the Democratic candidate who was an Irish Catholic. 88 Lincoln directed the state campaign, and, in the legislature which was elected, he was the first candidate of the Know Nothings and Whigs 10 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement for the Senate against Shields. 9 * On the first ballot Lincoln received 45 votes— all the Know Nothing and Whig votes. 95 When he saw he could not get the five anti-Nebraska Democratic votes cast for Trum- bull, he withdrew and elected Trumbull with the help of Know Noth- ing, Whig, and Free Soil votes. 98 The Constitutional Union Party was intended to be the successor to the Know Nothing Party of 1856, which had claimed to be "the party of the Constitution and of the Union." Part of the platform of the new party was couched in Know Nothing terms and its presi- dential candidate, John Bell of Tennessee, had campaigned for Fill- more in 1856 and had urged other Whigs to do so. 97 He had been considered as a possible nominee at the Republican convention and he certainly represented the 500,000 Fillmore votes in the South. Repub- licans averred that he had changed that party to the "Do Nothing" party. 88 In the Northern states the Constitutional Union vote was a quarter of the 1856 Fillmore vote; in Southern states it was a little larger. 99 If Seward had been the Republican nominee, Bell might have had a chance of election. Bell and Breckenridge were candi- dates in the South, Lincoln and Douglas in the North, with slight exceptions. 1860 Candidates Southern Votes Northern Votes Bell 515,973 72,906 Breckenridge 576,951 270,830 Douglas 163,575 1,213,382 Lincoln 26,430 1,841,022 There is little correlation between the above votes and the 1848 and 1852 votes. 100 The following table shows the similarity in the South and the dissimilarity in the North. 1856 Fillmore Vote 1860 Bell Vote Alabama 28,552 27,875 Arkansas 10,787 20,094 California 36,165 6,187 Connecticut 2,615 3,291 Delaware 6,175 3,864 Florida 4,833 5,437 Georgia 42,228 42,886 Illinois 37,444 4,913 Indiana 22,386 5,304 Iowa 9,180 1,763 Kentucky 67,416 66,058 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement 11 Louisiana 20,709 20,204 Maine 3,325 2,046 Maryland 47,460 41,760 Massachusetts 19,626 23,331 Michigan 1,660 405 Mississippi 24,195 25,040 Missouri 48,524 58,372 New Hampshire 422 441 New Jersey 24,115 (Fusion ticket)* New York 124,604 (Fusion ticket)* North Carolina 36,886 44,990 Ohio 28,126 12,194 Pennsylvania 82,175 12,776 Rhode Island 1,675 (Fusion ticket)* South Carolina (No popular vote) (No popular vote) Tennessee 66,178 69,274 Texas 15,639 15,438 Vermont 545 217 Virginia 60,310 74,681 Wisconsin 579 161 Oregon (Not a state) 183 *No separate figures available There were large gains for Bell over Fillmore in the border states of Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, and North Carolina. The votes were almost the same in other Southern states. There were lost (in round numbers) 30,000 votes in California, 34,000 in Illinois, 17,000 in In- diana, 7,000 in Iowa, 16,000 in Ohio, 70,000 in Pennsylvania, and an uncertain number in New Jersey and in New York. These votes de- termined the election. Who received them? Republican gains were more than double the Know Nothing losses in most of the states in question. Nativists were opposed to democracy with a small d and hated the Democratic party with a big D. The monied men who inspired and financed the Nativists were, in many cases, Republicans. The 1860 platform of the Democrats repeated their 1856 opposition to Know Nothing principles. The leading Democratic candidate, Steph- en Douglas, had antagonized Know Nothings by numerous speeches against them. 101 Seeing the growing coalition of Know Nothing and Republicans, Douglas was convinced that most Republicans had en- tered Know Nothing lodges and he denounced them vigorously. 102 He contended that those who were opposed to democracy hated the "foreign element.' > Since he was married to a Catholic and since he had made a recent visit to Rome— in the course of which it was 12 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement charged, he bowed to the Pope— it was clear that he would receive no Know Nothing votes. 108 Know Nothings also hated Buchanan, who had beaten them in 1856; this hostility extended to John C. Brecken- ridge, who was definitely Buchanan's candidate. They also opposed Breckenridge because of their prejudice against the Chief Justice Roger Taney, a Catholic and a friend of both Buchanan and Brecken- ridge. Some Northern Know Nothings claimed that had the votes of their following in more Northern states been cast for Fremont in 1856 the election might have been thrown into the House. If they supported Bell in 1860 they would risk losing Northern states to Douglas. That left them only one choice: to vote Republican. Most of them did so. There was no word of anti-nativism in the Republican platform of 1860, which also soft-pedaled the anti-slavery attitudes of 1856. For all practical purposes, the Republicans appeared to be primarily a Henry Clay Whig party. 104 Republicans worked feverishly during the 1860 campaign for the votes of Know Nothings. Fillmore, the 1856 nominee of the latter, refused to change, but a large number of his followers in New York went over to the Republicans. 105 Many Know Nothing newspapers and politicians in Indiana came out in support of Lincoln. 108 The fusion parties of Pennsylvania and New Jersey attempted to hold together for Lincoln. 107 Since Illinois had no registration laws, it was easy to vote more than once, especially in Cook county. 108 German Republican leaders refused to oppose Know Nothings in 1859. 109 Lin- coln's secretly-owned German newspaper helped out considerably. 110 The Lincoln vote in the German counties of Illinois was almost iden- tical with the percentage of German names in the population. 111 Illi- nois Republicans stressed the Know Nothing issue and Henry Clay." 3 Lincoln's birth in the south was stressed in counties with many Know Nothings of southern descent." 8 On March 10, 1860, Lincoln's Ger- man paper, the Illinois Stoats- Anzeiger, printed a report from Chi- cago that in the spring elections a Democratic parade had carried a banner inscribed "Down with Protestants." 11 * The Chicago Press and Tribune declared on July 17, 1860: "Catholi- cism and Republicanism are as plainly incompatible as "oil and water." 118 On election day, November 2, 1860, the same paper rein- forced its stand; it appealed to "Republicans with Know Nothing pro- clivities." 11 * Lincoln's election depended on carrying Pennsylvania and either Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement 13 Indiana or Illinois (while holding Iowa, New York, and Ohio). The popular vote in these states, and in California, is suggestive of the situation. 1856 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE 1860 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE (By Thousands) (By Thousands) Buchanan Fremont Fillmore Douglas Breck- Lincoln Be enridge California 53 20 36 38 34 39 6 Illinois 105 96 37 160 2 172 4 Indiana 118 94 22 115 12 139 5 Iowa 36 43 9 55 1 70 1 New York 195 276 124 812(-) + 362 + Ohio 170 187 28 187 11 231 12 Pennsylvania 230 147 82 194 268 12 The table above makes it evident that most of the Know Nothing vote of 1856 in Indiana and Pennsylvania switched to Lincoln in 1860. Exactly how many such votes turned to him in 1860 isn't known, but undoubtedly most of them did. A study of the counties which gave Fillmore either a majority or the balance of power in 1856 in the states which were salient in the election of 1860 makes clear what happened to the Know Nothing vote in the latter election. John Bell, the candidate of the Constitutional Union Party, which ostensibly replaced the Know Nothing Party of 1856, obviously did not receive the Know Nothing vote of 1856 in most states. To all indications, much of the Know Nothing strength in California went to Lincoln, as is shown by the Republican gains from 1856 in counties and the loss in the Bell vote from the Fillmore vote of 1856. CALIFORNIA: 1860 COUNTY ELECTION GAINS AND LOSSES COMPARED WITH 1856 Republican Gain, 1860 Bell Loss, 1860 Alameda 310 151 Colusa 232 235 Humbolt 310 151 Napa 283 200 Santa Clara 659 573 Yolo 404 567 Illinois gives much more conclusive evidence of this trend. 117 Bond, Edwards, Madison, and Piatt counties, four of the five Know Nothing 14 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement counties of 1856, supported Lincoln in 1860; he ran a close second in Wabash, the other such county. In most counties of this state, Lincoln's gain over Fremont's 1856 vote is more than the loss sustained by Bell from Fillmore's 1856 totals. In many counties the Douglas gain is less than the Know Nothing vote of those counties in the pre- ceding election. Evidently most of the latter vote was given to Lincoln. 118 ILLINOIS: 1860 COUNTY ELECTION GAINS AND LOSSES COMPARED WITH 1856 Republican Gain, 1860 Bell Loss, 1860 634 221 717 605 294 850 968 132 415 456 347 785 1,480 406 802 551 791 293 351 299 475 1,482 836 731 463 290 150 The situation in Indiana is also conclusive. 118 In most counties the Know Nothing vote in this state went Republican. The same was true in Iowa: most Know Nothing votes of 1856 were Republican in 1860. In New Jersey, the opposition to Lincoln ran a fusion ticket, which makes it simple to compare Republican gains with Know Nothing losses although there were Know Nothings who participated in the Bond 834 Champaign 1,061 Coles 712 DeWitt 663 Edwards 404 Fulton 1,608 Hancock 1,448 Henderson 496 Jersey 523 Logan 1,174 Macon 1,001 Macoupin 1,396 Madison 2,050 Mason 931 McDonough 1,665 McLean 1,096 Morgan 1,349 Moultrie 464 Peoria 1,457 Piatt 432 Randolph 673 Sangamon 2,382 St. Clair 1,686 Tazewell 1,035 Wabash 485 Warren 926 Woodford 642 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement 15 fusion campaign. Since most Know Nothings had fused previously with Republicans in this state, it is probable that most of them re- mained Republicans in 1860. The figures suggest that most of the Know Nothing vote must have gone Republican. The Douglas elec- tors ran ahead of their fusion colleagues and were elected, which sug- gests that fusion may have lost votes for Douglas. INDIANA: 1860 COUNTY ELECTION GAINS AND LOSSES COMPARED WITH 1856 Republican Gain, 1860 Bell Loss, 1860 Clark 877 758 Dubois 281 216 Floyd 923 942 Fountain 50 30 Harrison 820 521 Jefferson 347 275 Jennings 356 130 Lawrence 678 452 Ohio 197 176 Orange 800 521 Perry 930 472 Pike 814 535 Posey 749 457 Putnam 533 300 Rush 113 48 Switzerland 506 530 Vermillion 204 60 Vigo 1,246 662 IOWA: 1860 COUNTY ELECTION GAINS AND LOSSES COMPARED WITH 1856 Republican Gain, 1860 Bell Loss, 1860 Des Moines 659 366 Jackson 381 233 Jefferson 275 168 Lee 837 514 Lucas 298 168 Page 369 179 Story 186 79 Van Buren 575 305 Wapello 307 230 A similar fusion of the three tickets in New York against Lincoln makes the picture more confused, but there are some counties con- forming to the pattern of other states. The figures suggest that about two-thirds of the New York Know Nothings supported Lincoln and Burlington 2,117 Camden 1,667 Cape May 443 Cumberland 1,663 Essex 4,052 Gloucester 1,314 Hudson 1,777 Mercer 1,200 Middlesex 1,715 Ocean 506 Passaic 993 Salem 1,794 Somerset 662 16 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement a third voted for the fusion ticket. There are a few counties where the influence of Fillmore evidently kept most of the Know Nothings for fusion. In New York, Republicans had only to gain a third of the Know Nothing vote to hold the state. They did."* NEW JERSEY: 1860 COUNTY ELECTION GAINS AND LOSSES COMPARED WITH 1856 Republican Gain, 1860 Bell Loss, 1860 1,584 2,088 497 1,231 4,338 1,380 1,411 1,064 1,988 304 954 1,516 709 NEW YORK: 1860 COUNTY ELECTION GAINS AND LOSSES COMPARED WITH 1856 Republican Gain, 1860 Bell Loss, 1860 5,301 1,981 1,311 2,013 5,520 1,533 8,647 1.979 3,070 2,172 479 2,521 4,548 946 937 2,581 1,265 1,630 1,980 2,037 4,703 3.641 Albany 4,819 Columbia 1,290 Clinton 1,302 Dutchess 1,251 Erie 5,529 Greene 963 Kings 8,017 Livingstone 1,581 Monroe 3,224 Orange 1,624 Putnam 280 Queens 1,863 Rensellaer 3,311 Richmond 672 Rockland 742 Saratoga 1,376 Seneca 862 Schoharie 903 Suffolk 1,363 Sullivan 2,254 Ulster 4,743 Westchester 2,321 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement 17 Ohio counties add to the pattern. The majority of the Know Nothing vote evidently went to Lincoln, keeping the state Republican. OHIO: 1860 COUNTY ELECTION GAINS AND LOSSES COMPARED WITH 1856 Republican Gain, 1860 Bell Loss, 1860 Belmont 858 642 Clermont 777 572 Darke 374 167 Fayette 249 126 Franklin 807 455 Gallia 1,271 1,016 Hamilton 6,837 1,995 Highland 599 419 Lawrence 1,058 704 Licking 475 366 Lucas 1,033 365 Madison 420 304 Montgomery 936 212 Muskingum 832 696 Perry 220 361 Pickaway 278 171 Ross 607 284 Shelby 241 103 Wyandotte 320 81 In Pennsylvania, the population had not increased as rapidly as had that of any other states. Only 19,000 more votes were cast in the Keystone state in 1860 than were cast in 1856. The Democratic vote in 1860 was 36,000 less than four years before. This substantial decline was probably due to the fact that in 1856 the Democratic nominee, James Buchanan, was a native of the state, and some Penn- sylvania Whigs supported him; this increased the party's vote. In 1860 it would seem that the voters who were Democratic in the pre- vious Presidential election and who continued to vote but departed from their former party allegiance, went to Lincoln, along with about 85% of the Know Nothing vote. The counties of Pennsylvania followed the national pattern except for the understandable decrease in Demo- cratic votes. To judge by the election returns it is impossible to be- lieve that the bulk of the Pennsylvania Know Nothing vote of 1856 could have voted in 1860 for anyone but Lincoln. 120 The 1860 campaign is easily summarized. Bell drew votes which Lincoln could not draw, but he received few of the Know Nothing votes in the north. The majority of the new immigrant vote, which Illinois, 1856 Illinois, 1860 Indiana, 1856 Indiana, 1860 Iowa, 1856 Iowa, 1860 New York* Ohio 1856 Ohio 1860 Pennsylvania, 1856 Pennsylvania, 1860 Democratic Republican Republican, with Know Nothing bal- ance of power Democratic, with Know Nothing bal- ance of power Know Nothing (American in 1856, Constitutional Union in 1860) Unorganized territority in 1856 20 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement was anti-Know Nothing, went to Douglas. Democratic hopes were for an election by the House. A change to Douglas of one vote in twenty-seven in the northwest would have given him the salient states of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, but it is clear that the Know Nothing vote had gone Republican in those states. 121 PENNSYLVANIA: 1860 COUNTY ELECTION GAINS AND LOSSES COMPARED WITH 1856 Republican Gain, 1860 Bell Loss, 1860 Blair 2,605 2,053 Chester 2,463 1,246 Dauphin 2,916 2,270 Delaware 1,591 722 Franklin 1,705 1,157 Huntington 2,163 1,623 Jefferson 641 610 Lancaster 6,744 4,151 Lebanon 1,454 334 Somerset 1,760 1,475 Snyder 1,235 1,059 Washington 487 174 Wayne 685 111 Wyoming 148 72 Philadelphia 31,230 16,953 The Republican victory in the election of 1860 was a result of the Republican vote in six salient states—in Illinois, Indiana, and Penn- sylvania primarily, and in Iowa, New York, and Ohio secondarily. In the election of 1856, the Know Nothings had held the balance of power in most of these states. Most of the Know Nothing vote of 1856 was Republican in 1860. Republican gains and Know Nothing losses show remarkable similarities. The 1860 election returns in the coun- ties where Know Nothings were strong in 1856 demonstrate this indisputably. The Know Nothings were clearly responsible for the election of Lincoln. REFERENCES *Ray Allen Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860 (New York, 1938), 12. *lbid., 19. • Louis Dow Scisco, Political Nativism in New York State (New York, 1901), 17. *Carl Van Doren, Secret History of the American Revolution (New York, 1941), 374. "Billington, Protestant Crusade 1800-1860, 23; Thomas C. Hall, Religion and American Culture (New York, 1929), 80. "Scisco, Political Nativism in New York State, 19. 7 Ibid., 21. 8 lbid., 28. "Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 201-202. 10 Ibid., 42. *lbid., 202. " Catholic Historical Review, III, 611. "Scisco, Political Nativism in New York State, 50. "Anna Ella Carroll, Great American Battle (New York, 1856), 355. 16 Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 202. "Benjamin J. Blied, Catholics and the Civil War (Milwaukee, 1945), 12, 13. "Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 268. "Ibid., 268. "Denis Tilden Lynch, Epoch and A Man: Martin Van Buren and His Times (New York, 1929), 518. 20 William H. Herndon, Life of Lincoln (New York, 1888), 226. 81 Ray Allen Billington, "Some Papers of Franklin Pierce," American Historical Review, X (1904), 124. 22 Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 397. 88 Henry J. Carman and Reinhard H. Luthin, "Some Aspects of the Know Nothing Movement Reconsidered," South Atlantic Quarterly, XXXIX (1940), 216. "Mary St. Patrick McConville Political Nativism in the State of Maryland (Washington, 1928), 64; Albert J. Beveridge, Abraham Lincoln, 1809-1858 (Bos- ton, 1928), II, 224. 25 Carman and Luthin, "Some Aspects of the Know Nothing Movement Recon- sidered," loc. cit., 215. "Ibid., 217. 27 McConville, Political Nativism in the State of Maryland, 66. 28 Max Berger, "Irish Immigrant and American Nativism as seen by British Visitors, 1836-1860," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXX (1946), 156. "Ibid., 156. 80 Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 386. 81 Ulysses Grant, Personal Memoirs (New York, 1885), 169. 21 22 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement " Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 387. "Carman and Luthin, "Some Aspects of the Know Nothing Movement Re- considered," loc. cit., 220. 84 McConville, Political Nativism in the State of Maryland, 57. 85 Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 431. sa McConville, Political Nativism in the State of Maryland, 77, 79. 87 Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 156. 38 Scisco, Political Nativism in New York State, 131. 89 McConville, Political Nativism in the State of Maryland, 118; Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 241. "Scisco, Political Nativism in New York State, 125. "Ibid., 126-127. " Carl Fremont Brand, "Know Nothing Party in Indiana," Indiana Magazine of History, XVIII (1922), 47-81, 177-206, 266-306. "Charles H. Coleman, Election of 1868 (New York, 1913), 99. "Billington, Protestant Crusade 1800-1680, 389. " Ibid., 388. M lbid., 415. "Ibid., 425. "Edward Channing, War for Southern Independence (New York, 1927), 135. "Berger, "Irish Immigrant and American Nativism as seen by British Visitors, 1836-1860," loc, cit., 157. 60 Berger, Ibid., 157; Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 415. 61 Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 389-399. Ba Tribune Almanac For the Years 1886 to 1868 (New York, 1868). "Channing, War for Southern Independence, 136. "Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 393. ** Ibid., 396. 68 Scisco, Political Nativism in New York State, 147. 67 Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 428. "Ibid., 389. 69 Frank Stevens, "Life of Stephen A. Douglas," lournal of Illinois State His- torical Society, XVI (1923), 116. 60 Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 428, 435. 81 Catholic Historical Review, I, 321; Hall, Religion and American Culture, 478, 482. 62 J. G. Nicolay and John Hay, Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works ( New York, 1907), I, 221; Lynch, Epoch and A Man: Martin Van Bur en and His Times, 532; "Know Nothing seceders in 1856 nominated Fremont, and Republicans followed." "Horace Greeley and John F. Cleveland (ed.), Political Textbook for 1860 (New York, 1860). "Ibid. In California, the Know Nothings carried Colusa and Yolo and held the balance of power in Alameda, Alamedor, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Humbolt, Monterey, Napa, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Siskiyou, Trinity, Toulumne: 20 counties. In Illinois, they carried Bond, Edwards, Madison, Piatt, and Wabash and held the balance of power in 23: Champaign, Coles, DeWitt, Fulton, Hancock, Hen- derson, Jersey, Logan, Macon, Macoupin, Madison, Mason, McDonough, McLean, Morgan, Moultrie, Peoria, Randolph, Sangamon, St. Clair, Tazewell, Warren, Woodford. Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement 23 In Indiana, they held the balance of power in Cass, Fountain, Huntington, Jay, Jefferson, Jennings, Lawrence, Marion, Montgomery, Morgan, Rush, Switz- erland, Vermillion, Vigo, Whitley: 15 counties. In Iowa, they carried Gage and held the balance of power in Clarke, Des Moines, Fremont, Guthrie, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson, Keokuk, Lee, Lucas, Madi- son, Monroe, Montgomery, Ringgold, Story, Van Buren, Wapello: 17 counties. In New Jersey, they carried Camden and held the balance of power in 13 counties: Atlantic, Burlington, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hud- son, Mercer, Middlesex, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset. In New York, they carried Queens, Sullivan, and Ulster and held balance of power in 26 counties: Albany, Columbia, Clinton, Dutchess, Erie, Franklin, Greene, Hamilton, Kings, Livingstone, Montgomery, Monroe, Orange, Otsego, Putnam, Rensellaer, Richmond, Rockland, Saratoga, Schenectady, Seneca, Scho- harie, Suffolk, Sullivan, Ulster, Westchester. In Ohio, they carried Scioto and held the balance of power in 24 counties: Allen, Belmont, Champaign, Clermont, Darke, Fayette, Franklin, Gallia, Hamil- ton, Highland, Lawrence, Licking, Lucas, Madison, Montgomery, Muskingum, Perry, Pickaway, Ross, Seneca, Shelby, Van Wert, Wayne, Wyandotte. In Pennsylvania, they carried Blair and held the balance of power in 13 counties: Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Franklin, Huntingdon, Jefferson, Lan- caster, Lebanon, Somerset, Snyder, Washington, Wayne, Wyoming. 65 Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, 431. 06 Ibid., 431. 67 Scisco, Political Nativism in New York State, 91. 88 Charles Roll, "Indiana's Part in the Nomination of Abraham Lincoln for President in 1860," Indiana Magazine of History, XXV (1929), 2. e *Elwyn G. Robinson, "The North American, Advocate of Protection," Penn- sylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXIV (1940), 346-347; C. Maxwell Myers, "Influence of Western Pennsylvania in the Campaign of 1860," Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine, XXIV (1941), 243. 70 Carman and Luthin, "Some Aspects of the Know Nothing Movement Re- considered," loc. cit., 233. 71 Roll, "Indiana's Part in the Nomination of Abraham Lincoln for President in I860," loc. cit., 3. 72 Reinhard H. Luthin, First Lincoln Campaign (Cambridge, 1944), 142. 78 Emerson David Fite, Presidential Campaign of 1860 (New York, 1911), 121; A. K. McClure, Our Presidents and How We Make Them (New York, 1905), 156. 74 William Barringer, Lincoln's Rise to Power (New York, 1937), 96. 75 Ibid., 131. 76 Roll, "Indiana's Part in the Nomination of Abraham Lincoln for President in 1860," loc. cit, 8; Fite, Presidential Campaign of 1860, 21. "Frederic Bancroft, Life of Seward (New York, 1900), I, 535. 78 Fite, Presidential Campaign of 1860, 121. 79 Luthin, First Lincoln Campaign, 142. 80 Ibid., 53, 58, 59, 155. 81 Ibid., 42, 43, 146; Avery Craven, Coming of the Civil War (New York, 1942), 348. 82 Fite, Presidential Campaign of 1860, 121. 24 Lincoln and the Know Nothing Movement "Herndon, Life of Lincoln, 226. "Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln, I, 221. 85 Carman and Luthin, "Some Aspects of the Know Nothing Movement Re- considered," loc. cit., 223. 86 Greeley and Cleveland, Political Textbook for 1860, 221. 81 Peter H. Olden, "Anton C. Hesing, The Rise of a Chicago Boss." Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, XXXV (1942), 269. 88 Beveridge, Abraham Lincoln, 1809-1858, II, 354, 571. 89 Olden, "Anton C. Hesing, The Rise of a Chicago Boss," loc. cit, 269. 80 T. Aaron Levy, Lincoln the Politician (Boston, 1918), 187. 91 Beveridge, Abraham Lincoln 1809-1858, II, 571. M Luthin, First Lincoln Campaign, 184; Paul Selby, Life, Stories, and Speeches of Lincoln (Chicago, n.d.), 107. 88 Jane Martin Johns, "A Momentous Incident in the History of Illinois," Jour- nal of the Illinois State Historical Society, X (1917), 551, 553. "Ibid., 557. "Ibid., 557. "Ibid., 558. "Scisco, Political Nativism in New York State, 143. 88 Luthin, First Lincoln Campaign, 173. 89 Tribune Almanac For the Years 1836 to 1868. 100 Billington, Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, passim. 101 Stevens, "Life of Stephen A. Douglas," loc. cit., 470. 103 Olden, "Anton C. Hesing, The Rise of a Chicago Boss," loc. cit., 263. 103 William E. Dodd, "Fight for the Northwest, 1860," American Historical Review, XVI (1911), 788. 104 Luthin, First Lincoln Campaign, 183. 105 Ibid., 211. 108 Brand, "Know Nothing Party in Indiana," loc. cit., 304. 10T Fite, Presidential Campaign of 1860, 121. 108 William Eldon Barringer, "Campaign Technique in Illinois," Illinois State Historical Transactions 1932, 274. 108 Olden, "Anton C. Hesing, The Rise of a Chicago Boss," loc. cit, 274. 110 Barringer, "Campaign Technique in Illinois," loc. cit., 84. 111 Jay Monaghan, "Did Abraham Lincoln Receive the Illinois German Vote?" Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, XXXV (1942), 136. "* Luthin, First Lincoln Campaign, 183. ^Fite, Campaign of 1860, 121. u * Olden, "Anton C. Hesing, The Rise of a Chicago Boss," loc. cit, 87. 116 Ibid., 280. ™Ibid., 285. nT John P. Senning, "Know Nothing Movement in Illinois," Journal of Illinois State Historical Society, VII (1924), 2-26. John Moses, Illinois, Historical and Statistical (Chicago, 1895), II, 1208-1209. 118 Brand, "Know Nothing Party in Indiana," loc. cit, 289, 305. n * Stewart Mitchel, Horatio Seymour of New York (Cambridge, 1938), 187, 218. ^Wayland Dunaway, History of Pennsylvania (New York, 1948), 403. 121 Dodd, "Fight for the Northwest, 1860," he. cit, 788; Edward Stanwood, History of the Presidency (Boston, 1898), 261. A NEW MONOGRAPH SERIES FOR THE PUBLICATION OF SCHOLARLY PAPERS Designed to further the advancement of human knowledge, this new series of monographs offers scholars an authoritative medium for the publication of significant contributions to the world of learn- ing. The series has been established in recognition of the urgent need for publishing the findings of scholarship more promptly, effec- tively, and inexpensively than has hitherto been possible. The format of "The Annals of American Research" is especially appropriate for articles, speeches, reports, and other comparatively brief works suitable for monograph publication. While each paper is published separately, production and marketing are channeled through uniform procedures for the series as a whole. Although the series is chiefly devoted to papers in the liberal arts and sciences, contributions to related fields are included from time to time. In keeping with the basic purpose of the series, con- sideration is restricted to works of merit by responsible scholars. The series marks an expansion of the publishing program of the Public Affairs Press of Washington, D. C. Created in 1938, this organization has issued several hundred books and pamphlets — in- cluding writings by Mohandas Gandhi, Julian Huxley, Charles Beard, Dorothy Thompson, Vannevar Bush, President Truman, Joseph Schum- peter, Lewis Mumford, Sumner Slichter, Morris Ernst, Henry L. Stimson and other distinguished public figures, scientists, and scholars of the humanities. Inquiries regarding papers believed suitable for inclusion in the new series should be addressed to the Editor, Annals of American Research, 2153 Florida Avenue, Washington 8, D. C. Annals of American Research New and Recent Monographs HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMERICAN FLAG William M. Markoe AMERICAN INFLUENCE ON CANADIAN NATIONHOOD Carl G. Winter SCHOOL AND SOCIETY IN ENGLAND C. Arnold Anderson THEORY OF PITCH AND RANGE IN VOICE PRODUCTION Hugh T. Morrison POSTAGE STAMPS AS PROPAGANDA Carlos Stoetzer WHITE SUPREMACY IN THE UNITED STATES R. Grann Lloyd Public Affairs Press, Washington, D. C. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 973.7L63C4H18L C001 LINCOLN AND THE KNOW NOTHING MOVEMENT. W 3 0112 031805234