SIMON CAMERO 
 
 IlE-P: M YEARS 
 
 §j§ 
 
 r :\)-m^H 
 
 
 
 
 
LINCOLN ROOM 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 MEMORIAL 
 
 the Clan of 1901 
 
 founded by 
 
 HARLAN HOYT HORNER 
 
 and 
 
 HENRIETTA CALHOUN HORNER 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 http://archive.org/details/simoncameronanteOOcrip 
 
Editors 
 
 Philip D. Jordan, Ph.D. Charles M. Thomas, Ph.D. 
 
 Miami University Ohio State University 
 
 Men of America 
 Volume III 
 
 SIMON CAMERON 
 
iimon Lameron 
 
SIMON CAMERON 
 
 ANTE-BELLUM YEARS 
 
 B y 
 LEE F. CRIPPEN 
 
 Berea College 
 
 Oxford, Okio 
 The Mississippi V alley Press 
 
 1942 
 
Copyright, 1942 by 
 Lee F. Crippen 
 
 All rights reserved. No part of this book may 
 be reproduced in any form except by a re- 
 viewer who may quote brief passages in a re- 
 view to be printed in a magazine or newspaper. 
 
 Printed in the United States of America 
 
3 
 
 g 
 
 my wife, K^/alhell K^arroll, 
 
 and our daughter, aJL^ois (Olizabeth, 
 
 'nose wholehearted ana painstaking coopevalion 
 
 has made this book possible. 
 
EDITORS' FOREWORD 
 
 Simon Cameron played a distinguished role in both state and 
 national politics during the turbulent years prior to the Civil 
 War. His political activities in Pennsylvania enabled him not 
 only to mould policies within the state, but also to help shape 
 the destiny of the nation. Cameron witnessed the collapse of 
 Jacksonianism, took part in the financial complexities of his 
 time, determined public opinion by influencing directly or in- 
 directly the press, witnessed the extension of the United States 
 westward, and had a hand in the innumerable delicate questions 
 centering about sectionalism and slavery. During the fabulous 
 'fifties he identified himself with the newly formed Republican 
 Party and even hoped to gain the nomination which eventually 
 was won by a prairie lawyer from Illinois. Even then, however, 
 Cameron fought on. When, at first, Lincoln somewhat curtly 
 indicated that he could not consider Cameron for a cabinet post, 
 the Pennsylvania politician persisted until he became the Presi- 
 dent's first secretary of war. 
 
 Dr. Crippen is well qualified to interpret this colorful char- 
 acter against the dramatic backgrounds of his times. For years 
 Professor Crippen investigated manuscript materials pertaining 
 to Cameron in the Library of Congress and other depositories. 
 Public documents which gave insight into Pennsylvania politics 
 and Pennsylvania leaders were scrutinized in order to evaluate 
 Cameron and his friends and enemies. Newspapers also were 
 searched so that editorial comment, political opinion, and abuse 
 and praise might be properly weighed and become a part of 
 the narrative. Private papers, notes, and letters, under Dr. Crip- 
 pen's careful eye, were woven into the story. Finally, a large 
 collection of material written by Cameron and owned by mem- 
 bers of the family was interpreted. As a result Dr. Crippen's 
 volume is a substantial and carefully documented volume which 
 is the first comprehensive biography of a major figure in Ameri- 
 can politics. 
 
 P. D. J. 
 C. M. T. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Simon Cameron, born of humble parents at the close of the 
 eighteenth century and apprenticed to the printing trade in 
 his 'teens, became, before the Civil War, one of Pennsylvania's 
 leading financial and political figures. At one and the same 
 time he was president of a bank, three railroad companies and 
 one insurance company. He entered political life as a Democrat 
 and supported that party — with some irregularity — until the 
 eighteen fifties. Becoming dissatisfied with the leadership and 
 tariff policies of the Democrats, Cameron cast his lot with the 
 opposition, aided in the establishment of the People's (Repub- 
 lican) Party in Pennsylvania, and became its first Senator from 
 his state. In the short session of Congress preceding Lincoln's 
 inauguration, he exhibited a spirit of conciliation and manifested 
 a strong desire to compromise the difficulties between the 
 North and the South. 
 
 During the last half-century he has frequently been the vic- 
 tim of misrepresentation. Various phases of his career have been 
 subjected to study with an excessive amount of attention paid 
 to certain of his actions. This has resulted in a distorted view 
 of his career and thrown it out of focus. Some writers have 
 based their stories on no firmer foundation than rumor and 
 malicious gossip, while others have presented a perverted pic- 
 ture through failure to make use of available documentary 
 material. 
 
 The Simon Cameron Papers in the Library of Congress, only 
 recently made available to scholars, cast important fresh light 
 on the character and career of Cameron. In the preparation of 
 this volume I have read the letters to and from Simon Cameron 
 in this and other Cameron collections as well as much material in 
 miscellaneous collections. His record in four sessions of the 
 United States Senate prior to the Civil War has been carefully 
 studied. Not only have his speeches been covered, insofar 
 as they have been reported, but his votes on all important ques- 
 tions have been noted wherever the yeas and nays were re- 
 corded. For contemporary opinion regarding his public policies 
 
as well as his public career I have perused a number of news- 
 papers as well as the letters, diaries and reminiscences of those 
 who were brought into contact with him. I can only express 
 the hope that I have succeeded in moving the story a little near- 
 er to the place that it ought to occupy in historical memory. 
 
 A footnote reference to the Cameron Papers, unless other- 
 wise noted, always refers to the collection in the Library of 
 Congress. In the use of newspapers I have italicised only the 
 main word or words of the title and have not put the place of 
 publication in italics, thus I have modified a bit the practice of 
 the American Library Association. 
 
 For the inspiration of this book I owe all to Professor William 
 O. Lynch who, when I was a student in Indiana University, 
 first aroused my interest in this subject. It was a very great 
 privilege to have him as a friend, mentor, and teacher; his kind- 
 ness has been inexhaustible, and I take this opportunity to pay an 
 affectionate and grateful tribute to him. 
 
 In the collection of material I wish to express my appreci- 
 ation for the courtesy shown and the obliging assistance given 
 me by the staffs of the Manuscripts Division of the Library of 
 Congress, the National Archives, the Archives Division of the 
 Pennsylvania State Library, the Historical Society of Pennsyl- 
 vania, and numerous university, college, and public libraries. 
 Various local historical societies and individuals have gracious- 
 ly permitted me to make use of their collections of materials 
 bearing upon the subject. 
 
 I am also under grateful obligation to Dr. E. Taylor Parks, 
 of the department of history and political science of Berea Col- 
 lege, who has painstakenly read the entire manuscript and 
 offered many constructive criticisms and suggestions. Finally, 
 I welcome this opportunity to acknowledge the debt I owe, in 
 the preparation of this book, to my wife for her encouragement, 
 patience, and constant cooperation; and to my daughter, for her 
 arduous hours of typing and proofreading. 
 
 Lee F. Crippen 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 Editors' Foreword ix 
 
 Preface xi 
 
 I. Family Background, Business Foundations i 
 
 II. Political iVpprenticeship 15 
 
 III. Cameron and the Contest of 1 844 42 
 
 IV. United States Senator 63 
 
 V. State Politics and the Contest of 1848 91 
 
 VI. Business and Politics no 
 
 VII. Final Break with the Democrats 133 
 
 VIII. Return to the United States Senate 158 
 
 IX. Origin of the State Republican Party 185 
 
 X. The Chicago Convention 204 
 
 XI. i860 Elections, Short Session, Cabinet 222 
 
 Notes 245 
 
 Bibliography 295 
 
 Index 305 
 
CHAPTER I 
 FAMILY BACKGROUND, BUSINESS FOUNDATIONS 
 
 THE ELECTION of Simon Cameron to the United States 
 Senate from Pennsylvania in 1845 was significant in that 
 it brought to the forefront a man whose career is unexampled 
 in the history of the commonwealth. Colonel Alexander K. 
 iMcClure wrote of Cameron a few years after his death: 
 
 From the time he became United States Senator in 1845, until his 
 death, nearly half a century later, there is not an important complete 
 chapter of political history in the state that can be written with the 
 omission of his defeats or triumphs, and even after his death until the 
 present time no important chapter of political history can be fully 
 written without recognizing his successors and assigns in politics as 
 leading or controlling factors. 1 
 
 Noticeable from very early manhood, the wonderful energy 
 and perseverance displayed by him and his ability to brush 
 aside obstacles and force success, where nothing but overwhelm- 
 ing defeat seemed possible, marked him as a resourceful man. 
 Such distinguishing traits of character brought him to the at- 
 tention of leaders in public life, and very early his assistance 
 and influence were earnestly sought. He mingled business and 
 politics. He aspired to leadership and this ambition fostered op- 
 position. While he had hosts of friends who were loyal and 
 enthusiastic in their support, he also had uncompromising and 
 bitter enemies. He has been praised for his "ability, patriotism, 
 and fidelity to the public trust." 2 A critic declared that "Penn- 
 sylvania never produced a more adroit political manager than 
 Cameron." 3 He has been condemned as "an unconscionable 
 party trickster," 4 and "the most consummate scoundrel in Penn- 
 sylvania." 5 Such diverse estimates as these are the expressions of 
 contemporaries with whom he was associated in both state and 
 national politics. The American scheme of government tends to 
 produce leaders who dominate portions of the political field 
 
2 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 rather than the whole. A free government cannot function effi- 
 ciently without responsible leadership, for leadership without 
 responsibility is bossism. In the development of state bossism in 
 Pennsylvania, Cameron founded a dynasty which dominated 
 Pennsylvania politics for half a century; this dynasty included, 
 among others, his son James Donald, Matthew Quay, and Boies 
 Penrose. Cameron was one of the first powerful state bosses in 
 American politics. 
 
 To comprehend intellegently and appreciate fully the char- 
 acter of Cameron and also the marked service rendered by him 
 to both state and nation, one must consider his forebears, as 
 well as the circumstances and conditions which influenced his 
 youth. Simon Cameron, son of Charles Cameron and Martha 
 Pfoutz (Pfautz), was born on March 8, 1799, at Maytown, Lan- 
 caster County, Pennsylvania. On the paternal side he descended 
 from the clan Cameron of Scotland. Sir Ewen Cameron (d. 
 17 19), Lord of Lochiel and leader of the clan, has been called 
 the Ulysses of the Highlands. The Cameron clan shared its 
 fortunes with the unfortunate Charles Edward, the Young Pre- 
 tender, whose doom was sealed in the battle of Culloden, 1746. 
 Donald Cameron, the Gentle Lochiel, a grandson of Sir Ewen, 
 was a participant in that memorable battle, and having escaped 
 the carnage made his way to France where he died in 1748, at 
 Borgre, of "inflamation of the head." 6 Another Donald Cameron 
 and his son Simon, grandfather of the subject of this work, and 
 lesser members of the clan, came from Inverness, Scotland, to 
 America in 1755 and established themselves at Donegal Church, 
 Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. They had been farmers in 
 Scotland and pursued the same occupation after coming to 
 America. The proprietary and state tax lists of Lancaster 
 County, 1782, show Simon Cameron as possessing a farm of two 
 hundred acres, cattle, etc., with a tax of 1 1 £ 12s 2d. 7 He and 
 his brother John participated in the American Revolution. They 
 took the oath of allegiance on June 1, 1778. Some earlier writers 
 have indicated that General Simon Cameron was a direct des- 
 cendant of the Gentle Lochiel. The author has been unable to 
 find material which would warrant such a claim and the grand- 
 children of the General do not accept the validity of the claim. 8 
 
 On the maternal side Cameron descended from Hans Michel 
 
FAMILY BACKGROUND, BUSINESS FOUNDATIONS 3 
 
 Pfoutz, who was one of the first Palatines to arrive in Pennsyl- 
 vania, in September, 1727. He settled in Strasburg, Lancaster 
 County. In 1754, he moved to Pfoutz's Valley in what is now 
 Perry County. This valley perpetuates his name as a hero of 
 the border warfare in Pennsylvania in the days when the Dela- 
 wares and the Shawnees were attacking the homes of the out- 
 lying settlers. Hans Michel's son, Conrad, was the father of 
 Alartha Pfoutz, mother of Simon Cameron. Simon Cameron's 
 mother, being a Pfoutz, and his wife, a Brua, bear testimony to 
 the mixed marriages between Scotch and German families which 
 have formed the backbone of so many of the rugged and im- 
 portant families of nineteenth — and twentieth-century Pennsyl- 
 vanians. Cameron frequently prided himself on possessing the 
 doggedness and determination of his German forebears and the 
 aggressiveness of the "Scotch Rebels." 
 
 Charles Cameron, a tailor by trade, had a large family — eight 
 children — of whom Simon, the third child, became the most 
 prominent. The family moved to Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, 
 when Simon was nine years old. They were in poor circum- 
 stances and occupied a frame house on St. Johns Street. The 
 house was unplastered and had partitions of boards with three 
 rooms each on the first and second floors. Some time after the 
 family moved to Lewisburg the father died and Simon, with his 
 older brothers, William and John, was faced with the problem 
 of winning a livelihood. He hacj neither superior education nor 
 powerful friends to aid him. His education at this time consist- 
 ed of such "schooling" as the public schools of those days af- 
 forded and the advantage of reading a number of books. Among 
 his favorite books was Plutarch's Lives. Having a passionate 
 fondness for books he looked upon the printing office as a 
 chief center of thought and as a means most likely to satiate his 
 appetite. Therefore, on May 4, 18 15, he apprenticed himself to 
 the printing business of Andrew Kennedy, editor of the Nor- 
 thumberland County Gazette at Northumberland. 9 Due to fi- 
 nancial reverses, his employer was obliged to close his establish- 
 ment a few months later. Simon was now seventeen, small of 
 stature, and with anything but vigorous health. He made his 
 way on foot and by river-boat down the Susquehanna to Harris- 
 burg, where he renewed his apprenticeship, this time to James 
 
4 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Peacock, editor of the Republican. This publication was the 
 leading newspaper of Pennsylvania outside of Philadelphia. 
 After two years' apprenticeship he was made assistant editor. 10 
 
 Political dissension had arisen in Bucks County and in Doyles- 
 town, the county seat, between members of the Democratic 
 party which led to the development of two well organized fac- 
 tions. One group controlled the Doylestown Democrat, while 
 the other group, in order to gain expression of their views, es- 
 tablished in 1816 the Bucks County Messenger. The two news- 
 papers, both claiming to be the Democratic organ and being 
 bitterly antagonistic, tended further to distract the party. The 
 saner politicians desired to unite the warring factions and for 
 this purpose Samuel D. Ingham invited Simon Cameron to come 
 to Doylestown, where he acquired the Bucks County Messenger 
 from a Mr. Siegfried. Cameron travelled by stage. Benjamin 
 Mifflin, proprietor of the Democrat, was a fellow-passenger. He 
 and the other passengers freely discussed the rival newspapers, 
 Cameron's coming to the town, and the political situation gen- 
 erally, while Cameron prudently remained silent. When the 
 stage arrived at Marple's Tavern, where Cameron was known, 
 he was announced as the new printer, much to the chagrin of 
 his fellow-travelers. 11 He issued the first number of his paper 
 on January 2, 1821. 
 
 Shortly thereafter, in an advertisement in the Yennsylvania 
 Intelligencer, he announced his purchase of the Messenger , his 
 purpose to continue its publication, and that the "character of 
 the Messenger shall be purely democratic. At the same time it 
 will keep aloof from all local divisions and prejudices that may 
 exist in the republican ranks." 12 As editor of his first newspaper 
 he exhibited a breadth of information which, in view of his 
 limited advantages, seems astonishing. In March of the same 
 year, the Bucks County Messenger and the Doylestown Demo- 
 crat were consolidated and published by Cameron and Mifflin 
 under the name of the Bucks County Democrat, which was in 
 turn sold to General William T. Rogers before the end of a 
 year. Though the partnership of Cameron and Mifflin was of 
 short duration, it was long enough to harmonize the factions. 
 
 Cameron desired to make a closer study of national political 
 movements, and, after disposing of his newspaper interests in 
 
FAMILY BACKGROUND, BUSINESS FOUNDATIONS 5 
 
 Doylestown, he went to Washington. Here he obtained work 
 as a journeyman printer with Gales and Seat on, publishers of 
 the National Intelligencer, and printers of the Annals of Con- 
 gress. Much of his spare time he spent in the houses of Congress 
 and in cultivating the acquaintance of political leaders who 
 might become useful friends, among whom were President 
 James Monroe and John C. Calhoun. He also studied, first hand, 
 the mechanics of practical politics, such as how "followings" 
 are built up and held together by doing real favors so as to have 
 funds and influence from the rich and votes and cheers from 
 the poor. 13 This was valuable experience for Cameron, for it 
 brought him into close touch with leaders and activities at the 
 national capitol, thus broadening his political horizon. 
 
 In 1822, he returned to Harrisburg and entered into partner- 
 ship with Charles Mowry, publisher of the Pennsylvania Intelli- 
 gencer. This newspaper was at that time the organ of the Demo- 
 cratic Party at the state capitol and enjoyed the official patron- 
 age of the state administration. The paper, under the new own- 
 ership, carried the sub-title or motto "Truth Without Fear." 
 The proprietors jointly announced that: 
 
 having associated their interests . . . [they] solicit the patronage of their 
 friends, and that of the democratic republican family throughout the 
 state. An important epoch is approaching in the political world. Al- 
 ready the public eye is casting about for a new candidate to fill the 
 presidential chair, as well as one to succeed the present governor of this 
 state. Pennsylvania is looked to, with no little anxiety, on the first of 
 those subjects, and her decision in both cases will be cast in the same 
 mould. For, should the candidate for governor to which the federal 
 party shall cling be again elected, the vote for president will be of the 
 same character. To avert such a state of things will be the chief aim of 
 the editors . . . they wish distinctly to be understood, that they are not 
 bound by any secret pledge or promise to support any particular indi- 
 vidual, for either of those important stations. Their endeavor will be to 
 follow, rather than attempt to lead public sentiment; and to allay, rather 
 than to excite sectional jealousies; to have the best man taken up, let 
 him come from what quarter he may. 14 
 
 The Harrisburg Republican was bought some time later by 
 Cameron and merged with the Pennsylvania Intelligencer. His 
 editorial position enabled him to take an active part in both 
 state and national politics. He became a staunch advocate of 
 
6 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 high-tariff doctrines, and, in 1824, desired that the support of 
 Pennsylvania be given to the early candidacy of Calhoun. His 
 growing prestige brought him the remunerative position of state 
 printer, an office he held for several years. This position 
 brought to him contracts from other sources and profits from 
 his printing business grew. He was an early friend and sup- 
 porter of Governor J. Andrew Shulze (1823-29) and was hon- 
 ored in 1826 by an appointment as adjutant general of Pennsyl- 
 vania, the duties of which office he discharged with ability and 
 to the satisfaction of the public. Cameron continued to fill the 
 office of adjutant general long after the expiration of Shulze's 
 second term. 15 It was from this office that he acquired the mili- 
 tary title, "General," which clung to him during the remainder 
 of his life. 
 
 Cameron continued his connections with the Pennsylvania 
 Intelligencer until 1827, though Mowry had two years earlier 
 disposed of his interests to David Kraus. 16 In 1827, Cameron's 
 efforts to create party harmony were again successful. The 
 Pennsylvania Reporter was established by S. C. Stambaugh, with 
 himself (Stambaugh) as editor and publisher. He stated edi- 
 torially in the first number that the paper was contemplated be- 
 cause of exhibited symptoms of hostility to General Jackson, 
 the presidential candidate of the party, by the Pennsylvania In- 
 telligencer, which had for so long been regarded as the organ 
 of the party. The policy of the paper as stated "will be purely 
 and energetically democratic." Cameron's valedictory as editor 
 of the Intelligencer published in the first number of the Reporter 
 announced that "the Intelligencer and this establishment have 
 become consolidated." The Pennsylvania Reporter, therefore, 
 was a continuation of the older, democratic Harrisburg Repub- 
 lican and the later Pennsylvania Intelligencer, "in new habili- 
 ments and under a new title." The young editor wrote: 
 
 The causes which led to this result, are in some measure of a personal 
 character, but principally arose from the desire to see the democratic 
 party move on in harmonious prosperity, which I felt assured it could 
 not do if two papers, both professing to be democratic, and striving 
 for the ascendancy, were established at the seat of government . . . Mr. 
 Stambaugh comes highly recommended . . . and I feel assured that he 
 will make the paper one of the most respected in the state ... As the 
 
FAMILY BACKGROUND, BUSINESS FOUNDATIONS 7 
 
 editor of the paper I hope that my friends . . . will give him their warm 
 and hearty confidence and support, as the surest means of preserving 
 in existence a powerful auxiliary to the permanence of the party. 17 
 
 With this editorial Cameron ended his career as a newspaper 
 editor, though his interest in journalism, for obvious reasons, 
 continued throughout his life. He was financially interested as a 
 silent partner, or otherwise, in the press for years to come. 18 He 
 recognized the press as a source of power. His failure to hold 
 fast to the ideals expressed in his earlier days, in the Messenger, 
 enabled a hostile critic to declare in later years that he had no 
 other conception of a newspaper than that it was a means to 
 mislead the public, or to assail such as would not be misled. 19 
 This attitude was all too common among newspaper editors in 
 the latter half of the nineteenth century. 
 
 As soon as his position and reputation were established and 
 his purse was sufficient, he began to enter other fields which 
 promised greater financial gain than the press. This was an era of 
 internal improvements and the ambitious young printer quickly 
 perceived money-making possibilities in ventures along this line. 
 
 Freight transportation in Pennsylvania in the early nineteenth 
 century was by way of covered Conestoga wagons over turn- 
 pikes, to a large extent privately owned. With the development 
 of the Erie Canal, Pennsylvania became fearful lest its western 
 trade be drawn off to New York. Pennsylvania was overcome 
 by the mania for canal building and in 1822 the state legislature 
 authorized the building of the Pennsylvania Canal from Colum- 
 bia, on the Susquehanna, to Pittsburgh. Supplementary legis- 
 lation provided for the connecting of sections of the canal by 
 railroad and directed the locating and constructing of a railroad 
 from Philadelphia through Lancaster to Columbia. By 1834, this 
 entire line of combination canal and railroad, by way of the 
 Susquehanna, Juniata, Conemaugh and Allegheny rivers, was 
 opened to commerce and travel from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. 
 It covered a distance of three hundred ninety-four miles and in 
 its larger divisions 
 
 consisted of the railroad from Philadelphia to Columbia, eighty-two 
 miles; the eastern division of the canal from Columbia to Hollidaysburg, 
 one hundred and seventy-two miles; the Portage railroad from Holli- 
 
8 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 daysburg to Johnstown, thirty-six miles; and the western division of 
 the canal from the latter place to Pittsburgh, a distance of one hundred 
 and four miles. 20 
 
 Prior to 1836 horse-cars were used on the Columbia road and 
 nine hours were required for the eighty-two mile trip. The 
 Pennsylvania Canal brought prosperity to all the towns along 
 its route — to Harrisburg and Middletown particularly. Middle- 
 town had the added advantage of the Union Canal, eighty-two 
 miles in length, connecting this place on the Susquehanna with 
 Reading on the Schuylkill. It became a great lumber market 
 and for a number of years was a serious rival of Harrisburg in 
 its expanding business and growth in population. 21 
 
 The Cumberland Valley Railroad, between the Susquehanna 
 River and Chambersburg, was completed about 1837 except for 
 a bridge. The Harrisburg and Lancaster Railroad was built be- 
 tween 1835 and 1838, and the first locomotives placed on this 
 line were built by Matthew Baldwin of Philadelphia. Abortive 
 attempts were made toward the construction of a railroad to 
 connect the Delaware and Ohio Rivers. Not until 1 846 did the 
 project assume tangible shape by the incorporation of the Penn- 
 sylvania Railroad Company. On December 10, 1852, a train 
 was run through from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh at this time 
 using the old Portage Railroad over the mountains beyond 
 Hollidaysburg. The Pennsylvania Railroad opened its line over 
 the mountains early in 1854. This road became one of the pri- 
 mary arteries for transportation of troops and supplies from the 
 West during the Civil War, its president, Colonel Thomas A. 
 Scott, serving in the Department of War as a co-ordinator of 
 transportation." 
 
 These and many other canals and railroads, especially in the 
 central Pennsylvania area, were in the process of construction 
 at the time Cameron was seeking wider business opportunities. 
 He soon established a reputation for himself as a contractor in 
 the construction business and also became financially interested 
 in businesses and industries which were allied to canal con- 
 struction and railroad building. 
 
 General Cameron began his venture in canal construction in 
 1826, in connection with the building of the Pennsylvania Canal. 
 
FAMILY BACKGROUND, BUSINESS FOUNDATIONS 9 
 
 He obtained contracts for the construction of sections of both 
 the eastern and the western divisions. Sections numbered seven 
 and nineteen of the Susquehanna or eastern division were built 
 by him. 28 By 1829, he was consulted for advice by other people 
 who were interested in submitting bids for canal contracts, 24 
 and he had also by this time established a business for the sale of 
 equipment needed in canal construction. 25 
 
 An interesting episode in Cameron's business career was his 
 connection with the building of the canal linking the Mississippi 
 River with Lake Ponchartrain. In granting a charter for the es- 
 tablishment of a State Bank, Louisiana had provided that the 
 bank should undertake the construction of a canal from New 
 Orleans to Lake Ponchartrain. During the early months of 1830, 
 a route was laid out, and later the contract awarded to a Mr. Mc- 
 Cord and Cameron. Extensive preparations in men and equip- 
 ment were made. Twelve hundred men were employed in Phil- 
 adelphia and sent to New Orleans by sea, while Cameron and his 
 engineers traveled by way of Pittsburgh, down the Ohio and 
 Mississippi. 
 
 McCord, of Philadelphia, failed, and, because of this em- 
 barrassment, Cameron requested the New Orleans Canal and 
 Banking Company to release him (Cameron) from the contract. 
 This request was readily accepted by the board and the work 
 was accomplished by the awarding of two new contracts to other 
 parties. Cameron, however, was employed by the company to 
 superintend the work. He was considered by members of the 
 company a very able man. 26 The work of construction pro- 
 gressed rapidly, but before the canal was completed General 
 Cameron was summoned by General John H. Eaton, former 
 Secretary of War under Andrew Jackson, to return to Pennsyl- 
 vania and organize a delegation to the National Convention, 
 which had been called to meet in Baltimore. 
 
 This New Orleans venture, by taking Cameron into another 
 portion of the vast country, greatly broadened his outlook. In a 
 letter to his friend ex-Governor Shulze, he really became en- 
 thusiastic about the lower Mississippi Valley area. Two of his 
 ships had already arrived, the men were getting pretty well or- 
 ganized, and the work was getting under way. Everything ap- 
 peared favorable, the climate delightful and the people "the 
 
io SIMON CAMERON 
 
 most hospitable that I have ever met." Always with an eye for 
 business, he described New Orleans as the place of greatest 
 business opportunity outside of New York. "It would be a great 
 place for a brewery — not one within 1500 miles. A tallow 
 chandler would make a fortune soon. Tallow 3 l / 2 cts. a pound — 
 candles 20 cts. Everything else in the same way." Raw materials 
 were very cheap and manufactured goods very high. The rea- 
 son, he observed, was "that nobody likes to work. All depend 
 on the Negroes." 27 
 
 The development of internal improvements, as has been noted, 
 greatly stimulated the growth of Middletown. The Pennsylvania 
 Reporter early in 1829 carried an article from a resident of Mid- 
 dletown pointing out the great need for a bank to serve the 
 river trade in that locality. 28 It was not until three years later 
 that the legislature made provision for the establishment of the 
 desired bank. Cameron's name appears among those of the six- 
 teen commissioners who opened the books for subscriptions to 
 stock, 29 and when the bank began business he was cashier, a 
 position he held for many years. The bank prospered from the 
 beginning. Though no dividend was declared for the first six 
 months, the directors did declare a four per cent dividend on 
 stock the second six months and an extra dividend of five per 
 cent for the same period. 80 During its first year the Bank of 
 Middletown became a depository for state funds. 31 A decade 
 later, apparently upon the recommendation of Senator Buchan- 
 an, it became a depository for federal funds also. 32 
 
 Cameron was an exceedingly social man in his habits, and was 
 endowed with a remarkably faculty for remembering faces and 
 names of persons whom he had met but once. These traits were 
 of great value to him both in business and politics. When he 
 was a resident of Middletown it was his habit to spend much 
 time after banking hours and during evenings at the hotels and 
 other public places. There he met old friends and made the ac- 
 quaintance of a great number of people from other parts of the 
 state. His social habits frequently brought him returns in the 
 form of banking business, and friendships that later were of 
 inestimable political value. 
 
 The panic of 1837 interrupted the prosperity of the Bank of 
 Middletown and Cameron struggled during the next five years 
 
FAMILY BACKGROUND, BUSINESS FOUNDATIONS n 
 
 to keep the bank open. Hard times became apparent in Penn- 
 sylvania in the spring of 1837, and the suspension of specie pay- 
 ments gave much trouble, particularly to the banks of the coun- 
 try. An optimistic note crept into his letters, concerning the 
 banking situation, in 1839, but there were many discouraging 
 periods after that before conditions returned to normal. There 
 was a general revival of business in the summer of 1839 and a 
 new collapse later that year. The worst period of the depression 
 was about 1841. His letters show the difficulty of securing col- 
 lateral for loans and of collecting loans outstanding. Cameron 
 was frequently annoyed by the interference of the directors with 
 his policies in the management of the bank. Their views were 
 much more conservative and legalistic than his. He would always 
 waive some points of judgment in order to aid a friend. In the 
 spring of 1841 he considered buying out a sufficient number of 
 stockholders to give him entire control of the bank. At this time 
 he had already become a stockholder in the Harrisburg Bank. 33 
 The legislature was besieged during the earlier years of the 
 depression by bankers throughout the state for more favorable 
 banking legislation. Cameron was a leader in this movement and 
 spent much time in Harrisburg earnestly working for the pass- 
 age of desired banking bills. He kept other bankers informed 
 of the progress of bank measures and even solicited expense 
 money from them. 
 
 There should be some funds sent to enable those who are here to 
 defray the necessary expenses. Your institutions are deeply interested 
 in the matter, and should bear a part of the burthen. I have been giving 
 my own time, and spending my own money — one of which should be 
 enough. Mr. Wharton, of Reading, is doing the same. He is so im- 
 portant that we could not get along without him. I write this for your 
 own eye, only; but the contents you will use as to you may seem dis- 
 creet. 34 
 
 Funds were made available and he wrote again, four days later: 
 
 I will accept the offer of your institution. It is but fair that the Banks 
 in the city should incur some of the expenses necessary to their safety. 
 I should not, under other circumstances accept anything from them. 
 But you know a man cannot live at Harrisburg upon the wind. 35 
 
 Bills satisfactory to the banks were passed; Cameron wrote to 
 
i2 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Simon Gratz that it was "a great and glorious victory," adding 
 "the Banks, therefore, are safe." The lobbyists had succeeded in 
 defeating resolutions to direct the banks to resume specie pay- 
 ments two months hence and to make the stockholders liable. 
 
 With the passing of the Second United States Bank, the fed- 
 eral government had deposited its funds in selected institutions. 
 This action was far from satisfactory, for it tended to encourage 
 over expansion of bank notes and laid the government open to 
 charges of favoritism. President Van Buren, in 1837, arguing 
 that it was not the business of the government to assume the 
 management of domestic or private exchange, proposed that the 
 government establish an independent treasury to care for its own 
 funds. By this plan he hoped not only to divorce the govern- 
 ment from the business of banking, but by the use of specie for 
 government business to lessen the demand for bank notes. James 
 Buchanan, United States Senator from Pennsylvania, supported 
 the president's position, while Cameron, being a banker, lacked 
 Buchanan's enthusiasm. Cameron wrote to Buchanan, from Mid- 
 dletown, "The banks will not be much disturbed. I feel much 
 more attached to them since my salary has been raised," and 
 added in a jovial spirit, "we presbyterians are against all 'di- 
 vorces.' " 36 He continued his connection with the Bank of Mid- 
 dletown throughout his active business and political career. 
 
 The full flush of prosperity for canals had scarcely been 
 reached before canals were challenged by another form of trans- 
 portation — the railroad. Railroads had many advantages over 
 the canals. They were cheaper to construct; were not affected 
 by change of seasons — freezing, droughts, or floods; provided 
 more rapid transportation; and could be constructed to reach 
 into almost any part of the country. The Mauch Chunk Rail- 
 way, in Pennsylvania, was one of the first built in the United 
 States. The earliest railroads designed for passengers as well as 
 freight service were built to supplement the canal system, such 
 as those referred to above — the lines from Philadelphia to Co- 
 lumbia and from Hollidaysburg to Johnstown. 
 
 Just as canal construction had been Cameron's chief interest 
 in the period of the canal boom of Pennsylvania, so, in the next 
 period, he turned to the development of railroads. It was largely 
 through his personal efforts that the Harrisburg and Lancaster 
 
FAMILY BACKGROUND, BUSINESS FOUNDATIONS 13 
 
 Railroad was built. He began promoting this road early in 1834, 
 completed it about three years later, and became its president. 
 He was disappointed that Buchanan would not accept the presi- 
 dency of the railroad when it was being organized, believing 
 that his name would lend prestige to the enterprize. He was 
 perhaps over-optimistic as to the ease with which the project 
 could be financed. He wrote to Senator Buchanan in February 
 of 1834 that "'we have nearly enough stock subscribed to make 
 our road; and if you wish to invest in a going concern it is now 
 offered. It will be the best stock in America." 37 However, in the 
 fall of 1836, the company sought a loan of $200,000 from the 
 Second United States Bank for completion of the railroad, 
 pledging as security the credit of the road and such other se- 
 curities as the bank might desire. It was stated that the capital 
 was $400,000, a quarter of which had already been expended. 
 At that time ten miles of the road were finished, twelve miles 
 more would be completed in a few days, and by December 
 first all but three miles would be in operation. The remaining 
 three miles would be completed in time for the western trade 
 the next spring. 88 
 
 It has been related that among the many expedients adopted 
 by Cameron to promote the sale of stock in this railroad was a 
 public meeting at Elizabeth, a town a few miles east of Harris- 
 burg. Samuel Fullweiler, a German, one of the leading business 
 men of the town as well as a personal friend of General Cam- 
 eron, presided. In the course of his remarks Cameron said that 
 u he expected to see the day when he would be able to eat his 
 breakfast in Flarrisburg, go to the city of Philadelphia, transact 
 his business, and return to Harrisburg by early bed-time." This 
 was too much for the old German. He sprang from his chair, 
 and, addressing Cameron, said: "Simon, I always thought you a 
 little rattlebrained, but I am sorry to see you make such a dunce 
 of yourself as to try to hoodwink these people into subscribing 
 monev to an enterprise that you know won't come out as you 
 say it will." 39 
 
 Cameron kept a vigilant eye on the legislature at Harrisburg, 
 scrutinizing all general canal and railroad legislation as well as 
 promoting bills which would favor his own projects and those 
 of his friends. He endeavored to obtain legislation favorable to 
 
i 4 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 a Maryland friend, C. Howard, who was building a road from 
 Baltimore to York. He felt that the trade with the West was 
 more than sufficient to feed the enterprise and employ the capi- 
 tal of many cities, and sought therefore to promote the business 
 interests of Middletown by advocating the building of a road to 
 connect Middletown and York, writing to Howard that "I 
 know full well that the interests of my little town will be aug- 
 mented by a Bridge and railroad from this place to York and I 
 will take care that everybody here shall be a committee of vigi- 
 lance to procure the bill." 40 He projected and established the 
 railroads from Harrisburg to Sunbury and from Harrisburg to 
 Lebanon and was a stockholder in other roads. 41 
 
 In time the stage passed in which railroads were built merely 
 as feeders for canals and connecting links between rivers and 
 artificial waterways. Great trunk lines dependent upon them- 
 selves alone were established both by new construction and by 
 the combination of independent lines already built. Cameron 
 created and became president of such a road, Northern Central 
 Railroad, which tied the central area of Pennsylvania with Balti- 
 more. This so-called "Cameron road," became one of the great 
 arteries for transportation of troops and war supplies during the 
 Civil War, and in more recent times it became a part of the 
 great Pennsylvania Railroad System. 42 
 
 In addition to the above enterprises, Cameron owned a full- 
 ing mill and blast furnaces that produced considerable quanti- 
 ties of pig iron. 4a He acquired real estate in Pennsylvania and 
 in the northern Middle West near Prairie du Chien. 44 He also 
 speculated in grain and various kinds of stock. 45 Notwithstand- 
 ing the diversity and responsibility entailed in the management 
 of his many enterprises, Cameron is credited with perform- 
 ing his business duties with skill and success. 46 
 
CHAPTER II 
 POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP 
 
 DESPITE THE TIME and effort required for his many 
 business enterprises, Cameron maintained a keen interest 
 in state and national politics even in his early manhood. Great 
 numbers of his business letters include sentences or paragraphs 
 inquiring about some phase of politics in the region of the per- 
 son to whom the letter is addressed, or a statement that the writer 
 is going to certain places soon on business and will look into the 
 political situation while there. 
 
 Cameron's early manhood was a period of great political tur- 
 moil in both state and nation. The passing of Jefferson and the 
 failure to find another such unifying leader resulted in the split- 
 ting of the old Jeffersonian party which had dominated national 
 politics for more than two decades. This was further compli- 
 cated by the rise of the Antimasons. In Pennsylvania, as in many 
 other states, after 1825, the Jeffersonians formed two groups — 
 one following the leadership of John Quincy Adams and Henry 
 Clay, the other following the leadership of Andrew Jackson. 
 In the period of transition when new party names developed, 
 each group attempted to fasten the name Federalist, as a term 
 of opprobrium, upon the other. 1 Especially did Democratic Re- 
 publicans denounce hostile leaders if they had ever been Fed- 
 eralists. Out of the confusion of the middle and later 'thirties 
 came the designations, Whigs and Democrats for the Clay and 
 Jackson followers, respectively. 
 
 To aid Pennsylvania's growing industries, Cameron early be- 
 came a staunch advocate of high-tariff doctrines, proclaiming 
 their merits through the columns of his newspapers. His own 
 iron interests later made these convictions more personal. He 
 was among a group who, in 1824, supported John C. Calhoun 
 as favoring protection; but, by the time Calhoun had manifested 
 his change of principles by his vote, as president of the Senate, 
 
1 6 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 on the woolens bill of 1827, Cameron had already abandoned 
 his camp. 
 
 James Buchanan, a former Federalist, became a Jackson sup- 
 porters in 1824, and Edward Channing feels that in the cam- 
 paigns for the presidential elections of 1824 and 1828 Jackson's 
 interests in Pennsylvania were much more ably managed by Bu- 
 chanan and his lieutenants than were the interests of the other 
 candidates. 2 The Jackson papers in Pennsylvania in 1824 raised a 
 hue and cry against the nomination of Crawford by a congres- 
 sional caucus, and against the caucus method as a means of select- 
 ing a candidate regardless of his qualifications. Cameron's Penn- 
 sylvania Intelligencer, a Jackson paper, declared the caucus to be 
 the work "of the friends of a single individual, held in utter 
 disregard and defiance, of the known wishes of the democratic 
 party in congress and throughout the Union." 3 In fact, the 
 Pennsylvania papers almost unanimously opposed the caucus. 4 
 Some of the papers saw in the American political tradition of 
 elevating the Secretary of State to the presidency what looked 
 to them like the succession of a royal dynasty. For a generation, 
 no one but a former Secretary of State had become President, 
 and now came Andrew Jackson, "pure, untrammeled and un- 
 pledged, from the bosom of the people." 5 The Jacksonians of 
 the Pennsylvania legislature issued the call for a state convention 
 to meet in Harrisburg on March 4. This convention bore many 
 resemblances to nominating conventions of a later day as to 
 both organization and proceedings. In high-sounding resolutions 
 it nominated Andrew Jackson for the presidency, with but one 
 dissenting voice, and John C. Calhoun for the vice presidency. 6 
 
 Pennsylvania, a strong tariff state, was therefore among the 
 first of the states to embrace the Jackson cause. Since a large 
 portion of his strength lay in the southern and southwestern 
 states, sections naturally inimical to the tariff, he was placed in 
 a rather embarrassing position. His managers in Pennsylvania 
 made the most of the fact that Jackson had acted with the pro- 
 tectionists in passing the Tariff Act of 1824, and they succeeded 
 in keeping him quite silent on the tariff issue during the cam- 
 paign. The fact that Jackson received a popular vote in Penn- 
 sylvania of 36,100, as opposed to a combined vote of 1 1,247 f° r 
 his opponents, Adams, Crawford, and Clay, is a tribute to the 
 
POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP 17 
 
 genius of his political managers. 7 Cameron during the 1824 cam- 
 paign supported Jackson but was not yet a strong Jackson en- 
 thusiast. The failure of the House of Representatives' vote to 
 elect Jackson was a blow to his followers, who almost immedi- 
 ately became articulate in their determination to elect him in 
 1828. His popularity was on the increase in Pennsylvania and 
 by the end of 1828 at least four-fifths of the members of the leg- 
 islature were in favor of Jackson for the presidency. Early in 
 January, 1827, a joint resolution was proposed in the state sen- 
 ate to give Jackson Pennsylvania's undivided support at the next 
 election. 8 
 
 Cameron, as has been seen, closed his public editorial career 
 before the election year of 1828. However, he maintained, as a 
 silent partner, newspaper connections with the Pennsylvania 
 Reporter through that year and a part of the next. This paper 
 energetically supported General Jackson and did what it could 
 to discredit the opposing party, declaring that the Adams men's 
 support of the tariff was thoroughly false and that Adams was 
 the "candidate of the Hartford Convention party." 9 It claimed 
 also that the tariff act of 1828, favoring Pennsylvania interests, 
 was the result of a Jacksonian Congress. 10 Cameron, doubting 
 the sincerity of the claims of the Jackson managers in Pennsyl- 
 vania regarding his views on protective tariff, was somewhat 
 slow in coming wholeheartedly to the support of the General. 
 In this period, he was attempting to play a cautious hand in both 
 state and national politics: supporting Shulze's candidacy 
 for the governorship of Pennsylvania; visiting Washington to 
 watch the course of national affairs in Congress; and secretly 
 keeping Buchanan informed, and advised, concerning the chang- 
 ing political winds in their home state. 11 His correspondence 
 shows how completely he kept in touch with political activities 
 in Pennsylvania, conversing with the leaders of the various 
 groups or parties, weighing this action against that, and plan- 
 ning a course to accomplish the purpose he had in mind. 12 
 
 For at least two years prior to the Harrisburg Convention of 
 March 5, 1832, Cameron worked in the interest of his friend 
 former Governor Shulze, hoping to gain for him the Democratic 
 gubernatorial nomination. Cameron was away from Pennsyl- 
 vania, because of canal construction at New Orleans, from the 
 
1 8 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 fall of 1 83 1 to the late spring of 1832. He had "pulled strings" 
 for Shulze up to the very time he left the state, and later bom- 
 barded his friends with letters urging them to get things lined 
 up for Shulze. He saw the possibility of gaining Antimasonic 
 support and wrote to Shulze from New Orleans that he felt 
 confident from observations in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh 
 
 that your election would be certain, if you were nominated in any way. 
 For this reason I regret my absence from Pennsylvania as I feel certain 
 that a little exertion would accomplish much ... I feel that we can 
 beat the rascals [referring to Governor George Wolf's administration] 
 and now is the time to act. 
 
 He assured Shulze he would "be at home in the spring and be 
 ready to aid in the Battle." 13 Cameron seems to have underesti- 
 mated the unity of the Wolf organization. Wolf was nominated 
 for a second term, receiving one hundred thirty-two votes, the 
 unanimous vote of the delegates present. 14 The Antimasons 
 gave their support to Joseph Ritner, who had been their guber- 
 natorial candidate in the previous election. 
 
 The building of canals and railroads in Pennsylvania was 
 state-controlled and under the direction of politically elected 
 commissioners. This matter became quite an issue during the 
 late 'twenties and early 'thirties between the followers of Clay 
 and of Jackson. The election of a canal commissioner every 
 year came to be looked upon as an annual test of party strength, 
 or a check on it. In the state campaign of 1832, both parties in 
 Pennsylvania made earnest efforts to disassociate politics and the 
 state's great internal improvement projects, the desire being 
 that the work should continue regardless of which party might 
 win the election. Cameron, in a letter to John A. Dix adequately 
 summed up the matter about nine months after the election. He 
 declared that the defeat of Wolf for re-election would have had 
 no effect upon the internal improvements policy. If Ritner had 
 been elected, he would have been compelled to finish the work 
 commenced, which was all that would be done by Wolf. 15 
 
 President Jackson, in his first annual message to Congress, 
 December 8, 1829, expressed himself as favoring a single term 
 for the chief magistrate. 10 Within a few months the presidential 
 henchmen were seeking means of circumventing this single- 
 
18 
 
 POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP 19 
 
 term idea. Major W. B. Lewis of the "kitchen cabinet" urged 
 upon a member of the Pennsylvania legislature the importance 
 of the re-election of General Jackson in 1832, and Cameron is 
 credited with zealous effort in starting what would in a 
 later day be called a "draft" Jackson movement. A caucus of the 
 Democratic members of the Pennsylvania legislature passed 
 resolutions urging the candidacy of Andrew Jackson for re- 
 election, and sent a letter to the President signed by sixty-eight 
 members of the legislature importuning him to stand for re 
 election. 17 In the language of Carl Sandburg "this rang a bell." 
 Many other states followed Pennsylvania's lead in sending 
 memorials to the President, so that the impression was formed 
 that Jackson was yielding only to popular demand. He was thus 
 able to enter the campaign without embarrassment either to 
 himself or to his supporters. 
 
 The break between Jackson and Vice-President Calhoun 
 came in the middle of Jackson's first administration. The Presi- 
 dent determined that Calhoun should be replaced in 1832 by a 
 man sympathetic with the administration. Jackson desired the 
 nomination of Martin Van Buren for the office of vice-president 
 and the machinery was set in motion to affect it. Jackson's lead- 
 ers decided that the best way to accomplish this end was by call- 
 ing a party convention. The Democrats probably used the new 
 method because the time was appropriate. The convention meth- 
 od happened to make it easier to nominate the vice-presidential 
 candidate. The caucus system had been replaced temporarily 
 by the method of nominating through state legislatures. The 
 Democratic Republican national convention followed those of 
 the Antimasons and the National Republicans. 19 Democratic 
 newspapers began calling for a convention, which was planned 
 to meet in Baltimore on May 21, 1832. Jackson's agents were 
 active in the organization of delegations to the Baltimore Con- 
 vention. In the spring, after the state convention at Harrisburg, 
 Cameron was summoned from New Orleans to look after the 
 Jackson interests in Pennsylvania. 20 
 
 The careful planning bore fruit in the convention, which 
 proceeded with machine-like precision to accomplish its pur- 
 pose of nominating a running mate for President Jackson. Cam- 
 eron was appointed by the convention as the representative of 
 
2o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 his state on a committee, made up of one person from each state, 
 to report to the convention the names of the delegates in at- 
 tendance. The first day of the convention was occupied with 
 the routine business of organization. The morning session of 
 May twenty-second brought forth the resolution which was to 
 become historic that "two-thirds of the whole number of votes 
 in the convention shall be necessary to constitute a choice." The 
 thoroughness of the work of the Jackson organization is indi- 
 cated by the result of the first ballot, which gave Van Buren 
 two hundred eight votes of the two hundred eighty-three dele- 
 gates; the remaining votes were divided between Richard M. 
 Johnson of Kentucky, twenty-six, and Philip P. Barbour of Vir- 
 ginia, forty-nine. Thus, having received more than two-thirds 
 of all the votes, Van Buren was declared the candidate of the 
 convention for the vice presidency. 21 
 
 Cameron had succeeded in having Pennsylvania's thirty votes 
 in the Baltimore Convention cast for Van Buren. This was posi- 
 tively not the free choice of the Democrats of Pennsylvania. At 
 the state convention in Harrisburg on March fifth, two and one- 
 half months earlier, there had been a struggle extending through 
 ten ballots, principally between the friends of Senators George 
 M. Dallas and William Wilkins, which resulted in favor of 
 Wilkins as the candidate for the office of vice president. The 
 majority of the Democrats of Pennsylvania still favored the 
 bank 22 and opposed Van Buren. The legislature had adopted 
 resolutions against the institution. During the Pennsylvania state 
 convention, Van Buren never received more than four of the 
 one hundred thirty-two votes on any of the ten ballots cast. 
 Buchanan, who wrote a letter to the convention declining the 
 nomination, received a small vote though larger than that given 
 to Van Buren. Thus Van Buren had made a very poor showing 
 for fourth place in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, the convention, 
 to guard its interests, resolved that should its nominees, Senator 
 Wilkins, for any reason cease to be a candidate for the vice 
 presidency, then the electors nominated by this convention 
 should cast their votes for George M. Dallas for that office. 23 
 
 Democratic Republican newspapers in Pennsylvania were 
 not at all pleased with the way matters were handled by Cam- 
 eron in throwing the state's vote to Van Buren. The Easton 
 
POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP 21 
 
 Argus y in an editorial on the Baltimore Convention, declared 
 "the farce is at an end." It referred to Simon Cameron as one 
 "whose politics have always been doubtful upon the Presidential 
 question, and who never has been a sincere and decided Jack- 
 sonman," and charged further that Van Buren meetings were 
 held in only six counties of the state by Van Buren friends and 
 that therefore the people of Pennsylvania were misrepresented 
 at the national convention. 24 It must also be remembered that 
 in the electoral college the Pennsylvania electors cast their thirty 
 votes for Wilkins for vice president. 25 
 
 When writing to Buchanan some four years later Cameron 
 philosophized on his political fortunes and misfortunes and al- 
 luded to the case of Van Buren, in whose behalf he took up 
 cudgels in 1832, spent his own money in getting up the Balti- 
 more Convention and holding meetings in the different coun- 
 ties. For this effort he gained for his pains the eternal ill-will of 
 every office holder and adherent of Governor Wolf, who 
 blamed him with bringing up Van Buren to put Wolf down. He 
 had indeed gained from it little but opposition and hatred. "Tis 
 true, that in all probability Mr. V. B. knows nothing of my ex- 
 ertions for him, for I have never spoken to him on the subject," 
 said Cameron, adding "However, I need not complain for I had 
 more enjoyment by pestering the folks at Harrisburg, until they 
 actually swallowed the dose of Van Burenism, than I ever had 
 in anything connected with politics." 26 What Cameron did in 
 1832 was primarily for Jackson rather than for Van Buren. 
 Jackson therefore owed him much and gave him much in defer- 
 ring to his requests in the succeeding period. Cameron was on 
 good terms with Van Buren, writing to him about Pennsylvania 
 politics in relation to national, explaining the part played by 
 Samuel McKean, Ingham, and the Calhoun "junto," and expos- 
 ing the insincerity of their support of Jackson, in the 1832 cam- 
 paign. He was even somewhat prophetic in his forcast as to 
 party reorganization in Pennsylvania. 27 Later Cameron was to 
 receive favors from the hand of Van Buren. 
 
 Shortly after the Baltimore Convention, perhaps partly in 
 recognition of his services to the administration, Cameron was 
 selected by President Jackson as an official visitor to West Point, 
 an appointment which carried with it little more than the honor 
 
22 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 of political recognition. Following the completion of his duties 
 at West Point, he made his first visit to New England, taking 
 the opportunity to visit and inspect the paper mills and various 
 other manufacturing establishments in that area. 28 
 
 James Buchanan had been elected to the House of Repre- 
 sentatives in 1820, where he served during the next five con- 
 gresses. It was his intention to retire from public life at the end 
 of the session that closed in March of 1831. He was now, how- 
 ever, a well known political figure in the dominant party, and 
 neither the people of Pennsylvania nor the national administra- 
 tion was ready to permit his retirement from public service. 
 Many of his Pennsylvania friends began advocating his nomina- 
 tion for the vice presidency in 1832. Prior to this, in May, 1831, 
 Major John Eaton, at the request of President Jackson, wrote 
 confldentally to Buchanan informing him that the post to St. 
 Petersburg was expected shortly to become vacant, and that it 
 would afford the President pleasure if Buchanan would ac- 
 cept the appointment as minister to Russia. After some corres- 
 pondence it was agreed that, upon John Randolph's return and 
 resignation, Buchanan should receive the appointment but need 
 not make plans to leave this country before the next spring. 29 In 
 due course this took place. Buchanan left for Russia in April, 
 1832, successfully performed his diplomatic duties and returned 
 to the United States in the fall of 1833. 
 
 Dallas retired from the United States Senate in 1833 and was 
 appointed attorney-general of Pennsylvania by Governor Wolf. 
 Samuel McKean, secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- 
 vania, had the support of the administration for the Senate va- 
 cancy. Strong opposition to him developed from anti-adminis- 
 tration quarters. Cameron had not forgiven McKean for his 
 opposition to his national convention activities in 1832. With 
 the return of Buchanan from Russia, Cameron did what he could 
 to promote his chances for the Senate. The time was short but 
 up to the end Cameron, who was keenly observing the legis- 
 lature, did not give up hope. Writing to Buchanan he stated: 
 "Thirty democrats can now be counted against him [McKean] 
 and the force is increasing. My impression is that it will concen- 
 trate after a few ballots on you." Three days later he wrote of 
 his disappointment. "McKean is elected; and he succeeded in 
 
POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP 23 
 
 part by the votes of the daymen," although, "yesterday we had 
 43 democrats against him." 30 
 
 As Aliddletown was only about ten miles from Harrisburg, 
 Cameron was able to spend considerable time there during the 
 ensuing months, as well as to make an occasional trip to Wash- 
 ington, where he had "no especial business, other than to see 
 and be seen." He kept Buchanan, who was spending much time 
 in Washington, informed on Pennsylvania political conditions 
 and especially on the bank question, which was seriously divid- 
 ing the Democratic Republican party in the home state. 31 In a 
 letter to Benjamin J. Bonsall, a political leader in Philadelphia, 
 Cameron showed that he was lined up with those opposed to 
 the United States Bank, doubted "our being able to re-elect 
 Gov. Wolf," and feared "the effects of his defeat on the next 
 election for the Presidency." He suggested the nomination of 
 someone else for the governorship as a master stroke of political 
 policy, in that it would "kill off Ritner and leave the defeat of 
 the Bank and elect Van Buren." 32 Besides requesting Bonsall to 
 express his opinion on the above, he got in an appeal for Buchan- 
 an: "I hope you will pay some compliments to Buchanan. He is 
 a fine fellow who deserves to be remembered and is the only 
 distinguished Pennsylvania who [sic] we can expect to place in 
 any of the high places at Washington." Two days later he ex- 
 pressed the same views in a letter to another friend, W. Donald- 
 son. He believed that those favoring the Bank were on the weak 
 side in Pennsylvania. He solicited the continued support of the 
 "little Dutchman." Since both of them favored Buchanan's 
 eventual elevation to the presidency, he hoped Donaldson would 
 speak a favorable word for Buchanan during the July Fourth 
 celebration. 33 
 
 The failure to elect Buchanan to the Senate in December of 
 1833 did not lessen Cameron's determination to gain the place 
 for him. Buchanan's own disappointment was expressed in a 
 letter to President Jackson about six weeks after the election. 34 
 As Cameron watched the activities of the Pennsylvania legis- 
 lature, he thought he saw a possibility that some other office 
 might be provided for United States Senator William Wilkins, 
 who had angered many of his constitutents by his stand on 
 phases of the Bank issue. If this could be done there would be 
 
24 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 "no doubt of your election as his successor," Buchanan was as- 
 sured. But again plans went awry. The legislature did nothing 
 for Wilkins. 35 Buchanan became discouraged, feeling that there 
 were no further prospects for him in politics, and informed 
 Cameron of his decision to practice law in Baltimore. Cameron 
 opposed this move and together they went to Washington. 
 While they were at the Capital, Senator Wilkins requested 
 Cameron to exert his influence to gain an appointment for him 
 to the Russian embassy, the office having remained vacant since 
 Buchanan's return. The Wilkins faction had been unfriendly 
 to Cameron since the Baltimore Convention, when he had turn- 
 ed Pennsylvania's Wilkins-instructed electors to the support of 
 Van Buren for the vice presidency. Here was his opportunity 
 to conciliate the Wilkins faction. He appealed to President 
 Jackson in Wilkin's behalf. Wilkins got the appointment to 
 Russia and resigned his seat in the United States Senate. Now 
 the play turned back to Pennsylvania, where a new effort was 
 made to line up the legislature for Buchanan. 
 
 The task was not so easy as Cameron had anticipated. Oppo- 
 sition appeared and Buchanan was somewhat discouraged. "I 
 suppose you can prophecy [sic] opposition from a certain quar- 
 ter," wrote Cameron in a letter containing also much more en- 
 couraging news, and asked Buchanan not to withdraw his name. 
 By December second, Cameron wrote that he believed all was 
 right. However, the same night he found that "there were 
 traitors in the camp" and every effort was being made to defeat 
 Buchanan. On the third he wrote a rather detailed letter to 
 Buchanan on the political situation in Harrisburg among the 
 members of the legislature and among those who were there in 
 the interest of the election, indicating to him who were his 
 friends and what were the forces working against him. Condi 
 tions looked discouraging but Cameron had not given up hope. 
 The balloting took place on the sixth, with twelve names reg- 
 istered on the first ballot. Buchanan received less than twenty 
 per cent on the first vote, but his support increased on each 
 succeeding ballot, until, on the fourth, he received sixty-six 
 votes to a combined vote of sixty-four for his four remaining 
 opponents, and was thus elected. 37 Cameron was as much pleased 
 as Buchanan and wrote jubilantly from Harrisburg to Vice- 
 
 30 
 
POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP 25 
 
 President Van Buren, informing him of the results of the elec- 
 tion. H8 His successes in regard to the Wilkins appointment and 
 the election of Buchanan not only pleased both of these men but 
 also greatly enhanced his own influence.™ Buchanan dined with 
 Cameron the next week on his way to Washington. "I went 
 with him to Harrisburg where we had a high time," wrote 
 Cameron. "No man has ever left Harrisburg under more fav- 
 orable auspices and 1 feel confident he will not deceive his 
 friends." 40 
 
 In 1834, on the death of General George B. Porter, a native 
 Pennsylvanian who was Governor of Michigan Territory, Cam- 
 eron first sought appointment to federal office at the hands of 
 the President. In support of Cameron, Buchanan wrote to Pres- 
 ident Jackson: 
 
 He is an intelligent, shrewd, and enterprising man, and so far as I am 
 capable of judging would be as well qualified to conduct the adminis- 
 tration of a territory as any person within my knowledge. His influence 
 is extensive & powerful throughout this State, and to my knowledge 
 many of the Democratic members of our last Legislature were among 
 his warmest friends. 1 need scarcely add that his politicks [sic] are sound 
 in every respect. — If, consistently with your views of public duty, you 
 can confer this appointment upon General Cameron, it would be very 
 gratifying to his numerous friends in Pennsylvania & to no one more 
 than myself. 41 
 
 Cameron's correspondence with Bonsall and Buchanan indi- 
 cates how completely he was working the field for the support 
 of his own appointment. "If recommendations can do any good, 
 I shall get along well enough," he wrote Buchanan. "I believe 
 nearly every prominent democrat in the state has written . . . 
 and various other dignitaries . . . and are warm for my success." 42 
 Others had the inside track, however, and Cameron consoled 
 himself by feeling satisfied that he was better off without the 
 office. He was proud of his recommendations and would never 
 forget those who had framed them. 4:J 
 
 The 1835 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election disrupted the 
 Democratic Party in the state to such an extent that it never 
 again recovered the unity and strength which it had displayed 
 prior to that time. Governor Wolf had served two terms and 
 much opposition was directed against him because he was not 
 
26 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 content to retire, but sought a third term. His period of six 
 years was a period of great activity and intensity of feeling in 
 Pennsylvania, as in the nation as a whole. Party organizations 
 were being disrupted and the Antimasonic movement was 
 strong. Pennsylvania was in the midst of its elaborate and ex- 
 pensive program of internal improvements which, due to mis- 
 management, had brought the state to the verge of bankruptcy. 
 For six years, the policies of Wolf had been exposed to bitter 
 criticism, frequently emanating from members of his own 
 party. Many political leaders felt that the strategic move for the 
 preservation of party harmony would be for Wolf to retire and 
 permit the state convention to nominate someone else. Many 
 doubted whether he could be elected if nominated and feared 
 the effects of this defeat upon the national elections of the next 
 year. Wolf and his followers were determined that he should 
 continue to lead Pennsylvania for another three years. 44 
 
 The regular convention was to be held, as was customary, on 
 the fourth of March in Harrisburg. Electioneering was begun 
 more than a year prior to the convention and by the fall of 1834 
 the Democratic opposition to Wolf was converging upon Henry 
 Augustus Philip Muhlenberg, of Reading. Muhlenberg, form- 
 erly a Lutheran minister, had been elected to Congress by 
 Berks County in 1828, and re-elected in each succeeding elec- 
 tion. He gave loyal and intelligent support to President Jack- 
 son's measures and was a good friend of Martin Van Buren. 
 The strength of these two ebbed and flowed to the very day of 
 the convention. Cameron reported to Buchanan in December 
 that "the chances are with Mr. Wolf because the office-holders 
 will have the principle [sic] hand in selecting delegates, but very 
 many of our wisest and most distinguished politicians doubt the 
 policy of running him again." Eleven days later he declared: "It 
 may be that I am to [sic] sanguine, but my present impression 
 is that Muhlenberg will carry the nomination." Cameron was 
 personally opposed to Wolf and saw grave danger that the ex- 
 citement against him had reached such heights in the campaign 
 that he could not be elected if nominated. However, being 
 closely wed to the party at that time, he stated, "I will vote for 
 him, if nominated, but," he added significantly, "I will do all I 
 can to prevent such a contingency." 45 Muhlenberg wrote to 
 
POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP 27 
 
 Cameron that he felt great hesitancy on his own part in declar- 
 ing himself a candidate for state office. He questioned whether 
 he could serve the people of Pennsylvania better in Washington 
 than at home in Pennsylvania. He declared that he would never- 
 theless yield to the wishes of his friends. 46 
 
 Cameron's longstanding opposition to Wolf was well under- 
 stood by the administration faction, which courted a more 
 friendly attitude. In reporting to Buchanan a celebration of the 
 citizens in Harrisburg he stated that the best and most reliable 
 were all for Muhlenburg; that "the office-holders and their de- 
 pendants [sic] sung the praises of Gov. Wolf. But they are 
 alarmed. For the last five years they never treated me as po- 
 litely as they are now doing." 47 There was clever maneuvering 
 on both sides. While the friends of Wolf were actively trying 
 to mend his political fences, the friends of Muhlenberg were 
 garnering support and votes among those who opposed the ad- 
 ministration, or were lukewarm towards it. The vote of the 
 Philadelphia delegation was to be very important. Congressman 
 Joel Barlow Sutherland of Philadelphia was both powerful and 
 influential. It was known that his friendship for Wolf was not 
 very sincere. The Muhlenberg advocates therefore sought his 
 support, even asking Van Buren to aid them in winning him 
 over, declaring that "whichever way he casts the balance, the 
 nomination will go." 48 
 
 As might have been expected, the convention was a fiasco. 
 The delegates instructed to support Wolf would not yield to 
 the Muhlenberg supporters and vice versa. After three days, it 
 was resolved by a vote of fifty-one to forty-one to dissolve the 
 convention and refer the matter back to the people. New dele- 
 gates were to be chosen and they were to meet at a second con- 
 vention to be held at Lewistown on the sixth of May. The Wolf 
 adherents had played a strong hand for control of the Harris- 
 burg Convention and their aspirations had been stymied. 
 
 They were a resourceful group, however, and on the night of 
 March sixth, several hours after the dissolution of the conven- 
 tion and after many of the Muhlenberg delegates had gone 
 home, a caucus was held. Plans were made to organize in con- 
 vention the next morning to nominate Wolf. On March seventh 
 the Wolf party held the convention and carried it for their 
 
28 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 candidate with only two dissenting votes (for Muhlenberg), 
 after which a ticket was made of electors for president and vice 
 president. Delegates to the national convention were appointed, 
 with instructions to support the nomination of Martin Van 
 Buren for president. Such high-handed conduct, of course, 
 stirred the anti-Wolf group to scathing denunciations of the 
 "irregular caucus nomination." Invectives continued to be hurl- 
 ed back and forth as preparations were made for the Lewistown 
 Convention. 49 
 
 Cameron wrote that he could not fail to hear the curses, 
 deep but not loud, which his Excellency and his parasites heaped 
 upon him, but that all which passed on both sides came to his 
 knowledge. He felt that Wolf could not under any circum- 
 stances succeed but that, if he and Muhlenberg would both sub- 
 mit to the Lewistown Convention, party harmony could be 
 restored. This really would have meant the withdrawal or sub- 
 mission of Wolf for, as Cameron saw it, the friends of Muhlen- 
 berg stood upon democratic ground. The convention had been 
 fairly and publicly dissolved. Rather than vote for the candidate 
 of a caucus in which they had no chance to participate, they 
 would let Mr. Ritner the Whig-Antimasonic candidate, or any 
 other person who would make a change, be elected. 50 This was 
 the position taken by great numbers of the anti-administration 
 Democrats. 
 
 The Lewistown Convention met on May sixth as scheduled. 
 It proved to be more factional than the March seventh meeting, 
 for now there were one hundred twenty-four delegates and 
 every vote was given to Muhlenberg. A resolution of this con- 
 vention also recommended the nomination of Van Buren for 
 President of the United States. The Philadelphia American 
 Sentinel and the Fennsylvanian maintained the same attitude 
 concerning Wolf and Muhlenberg as had been registered toward 
 the respective candidates in March. 51 Bitterness of speech and 
 temper continued throughout the campaign. Wolf and his lead- 
 ers actively toured the state while Muhlenberg left the cam- 
 paigning largely to his friends. Buchanan wrote confidentially 
 to Van Buren concerning the political situation in Pennsylvania 
 and was pointedly non-committal regarding Wolf and Muhlen- 
 berg. He believed that the division of the party would make 
 
POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP 29 
 
 Ritner governor but that it would not seriously affect the 
 presidential election. 52 As Cameron, Buchanan, and many other 
 Democratic leaders in Pennsylvania foresaw, with their party 
 divided and the opposition united, the result was inevitable. The 
 Democratic schism made Ritner an easy victor. He was elected 
 by a large plurality, almost thirty thousand, his supporters be- 
 ing about equally divided between Antimasons and Whigs. 53 
 
 The Antimasons had been opponents of Wolf since his 
 first administration and had made strong charges of corruption 
 and wastefulness against him and his administration. 54 They had 
 long been called advocates of a union of church and state. In 
 this campaign the Wolf Democrats imputed the same doctrines 
 to Muhlenberg, who had been for many years a minister. The 
 Muhlenberg faction endeavored to capitalize on this with efforts 
 to win over the German Antimasons. It singularly failed to win 
 them over as a body, but a few of them, led by Richard Rush, 
 did give their support to Muhlenberg. 55 To that extent the 
 plurality of Ritner was lessened. 
 
 The national convention of the Democrats met in Baltimore 
 on May twentieth. Cameron's name does not appear on the list 
 of delegates to the convention, though he had done much spade- 
 work in Pennsylvania in support of Van Buren. Each branch of 
 the split Democratic Party of Pennsylvania sent a full delega- 
 tion to Baltimore. Cameron had witnessed their passage through 
 Harrisburg and noted that they were eager for the fight. He 
 wrote to Buchanan: "They will find their wrath useless. The 
 'A'lagician' will take care that no difficulty in Penna shall re- 
 dound to his injury — and will therefore have both sets admitted." 
 He went on to comment on how strange public opinion is — 
 how three years before not one-third of a single delegation 
 could have been gotten to Baltimore in favor of Van Buren, 
 and now the whole state was fighting for the honor of singing his 
 praises. 56 The convention did just what Cameron had suggested 
 — voted to seat both of Pennsylvania's delegations, allowing 
 each delegate a half-vote. Since both delegations favored the 
 nominations of Van Buren and Richard M. Johnson and cast 
 their votes accordingly, the two factions did not present a prob- 
 lem. However, each delegation felt that the other should be ex- 
 cluded. The report of the convention indicates that the Penn- 
 
30 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 sylvania delegations caused some confusion, and were very bit- 
 ter against each other, and that each was ready for "a row." 57 
 
 During the national campaign in Pennsylvania it does not 
 appear that Cameron was as active as might have been expected, 
 when one remembers his prior exertions in support of Van 
 Buren. He served on one of the committees that arranged the 
 Fourth of July celebration at Harrisburg in 1836, and favored 
 inviting President Jackson to be the principal speaker. 58 The 
 contest was close in the autumn elections. Not until the twenty- 
 first of November, seventeen days after the election, was the 
 American Sentinel able to publish a complete record of the 
 Pennsylvania vote. With a total of 178,586 votes cast, Van 
 Buren had carried the state over Harrison by a majority of only 
 4,364 votes. 59 Pennsylvania's thirty electoral votes were cast 
 therefore for Van Buren. 
 
 Following the election, Cameron's interest turned towards 
 the seeking of some reward for Pennsylvania through presi- 
 dential appointment. He wrote to Buchanan that he would be 
 glad to hear when Van Buren should have determined "what 
 lucky number is drawn by this highly flattered and badly paid 
 commonwealth." 60 Ten days later he joined with O. F. Johnson 
 in a joint letter to Van Buren concerning Pennsylvania's rep- 
 resentative in the Cabinet. They expressed their belief that 
 Muhlenberg was the only man who could be safely taken. 61 That 
 pressure was being exerted upon Van Buren for a cabinet officer 
 from Pennsylvania is further indicated by a letter from Buchan- 
 an to the President-elect, on February 28, in which he stated 
 that "not only the strength but the preponderance of our party 
 in Pennsylvania depends upon your selecting a Cabinet Officer 
 from the State." He went on to say that he had no views to- 
 wards himself and that he would not leave his position in the 
 Senate for any other. 62 Nevertheless, Van Buren retained the 
 Cabinet as constituted at the close of Jackson's administration, 
 making only one immediate appointment, Joel R. Poinsett as 
 Secretary of War, and that was to fill an existing vacancy. 
 Muhlenberg was offered the Secretaryship of the Navy and the 
 mission to Russia but felt that he could not afford to accept 
 either of them. He did, however, the next year, become the 
 first United States Minister to Austria. George M. Dallas ac- 
 
POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP 31 
 
 cepted the appointment to Russia in March of 1837. Therefore, 
 Pennsylvania did receive recognition from Van Buren even 
 though not a post of such high rank as desired. 
 
 Cameron believed that Van Buren weakened his own posi- 
 tion of leadership by retaining the former cabinet and felt that 
 he should dispose of them and form a new cabinet composed of 
 men who would care more for his own interests. Cameron 
 thought that another vote of the Keystone State could be ob- 
 tained for the President but was aware of an undercurrent de- 
 veloping to defeat him. He said that Van Buren "has the frailty 
 of most politicians, which is evinced in a desire to count enemies 
 and forget early friends." He added a bit of his own political 
 philosophy, that if he himself wished to be rewarded for politi- 
 cal services he would always oppose the man he expected to 
 succeed/' 8 In other words he would play for bargaining power. 
 
 In preparing for the state nominating convention of March 
 4, 1838, Cameron played a less active part than was his custom. 
 He had been defeated for the office of delegate of his district to 
 the convention but was not distressed when the office went to 
 one of his friends, John Knepley. As to supporting and cam- 
 paigning for one or another of the candidates, he thought he 
 would act as a prudent man for once in his life by waiting to 
 see the winning horse approach the goal before betting on him. 
 He was happy when David R. Porter was nominated, and in 
 reporting the convention to Buchanan declared: "I was on the 
 winning side, having been warmly advocating P's nomination 
 ever since I heard Muhlenberg was to be out of the field." 64 He 
 stated also that there was great rejoicing in Harrisburg among 
 all the Democrats and that he believed there would be united 
 effort to win the election. 
 
 Cameron was frequently travelling about Pennsylvania on 
 business during this hotly contested campaign and took every 
 opportunity to make political soundings. To use his own words 
 when he was going on business into the upper part of the Sus- 
 quehanna Valley, he intended "to recreate a little upon politics." 
 He found some defection in the Ritner ranks and assurance that 
 some of the Ritner men would vote for Porter. The relations of 
 Van Buren with the Porter interests were not as cordial as 
 might be desired and it seemed that the success of Porter would 
 
32 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 be no index to the opinions of men in Pennsylvania in regard 
 to the presidency. Therefore, Cameron became active in trying 
 to commit voters to his own views. 65 
 
 Porter won the governorship with a majority of less than ten 
 thousand votes. The Whigs had a substantial majority in the 
 state senate, but the control of the house of representatives 
 hinged on the admission of certain members from Philadelphia 
 whose seats were contested. The struggle in the house of repre- 
 sentatives resulted in the organization, and the election of a 
 speaker, by each party. The question then was which of the 
 two organizations would be recognized by the senate and the 
 governor. Unruly and disorderly crowds took possession of the 
 lobby and halls of the Capitol interrupting all business and pro- 
 ceedings by their disgraceful and menacing conduct. Governor 
 Ritner ordered out the militia and danger of collision was im- 
 minent for several days. Finally the senate voted to recognize 
 the section of the house organized by the Democrats and the 
 trouble was virtually ended. 66 This insurrection is commonly 
 referred to as the "Buckshot War." Thaddeus Stevens was at 
 this time Canal Commissioner and played a leading part with 
 the Antimasons in the "Buckshot War." Albert G. Riddle be- 
 lieved that the bitter feud between Cameron and Stevens dated 
 from this event. 67 
 
 Several delegations of Indians had visited Washington during 
 1837 and treaties had been arranged with them. When these 
 treaties had been confirmed by the Senate a number of appoint- 
 ments would have to be made, agents or commissioners, to ex- 
 amine and settle the accounts of those having claims upon funds 
 provided by the government. Cameron sought Buchanan's aid 
 in gaining an appointment for himself. His principal reason for 
 desiring an appointment, he stated, was that he wished to have 
 some tangible evidence that his early and, as he believed, effi- 
 cient services in favor of Van Buren were remembered. Further- 
 more, the trip would enable him judge fairly all the advantages 
 of a portion of the Union which he had long thought possessed 
 attractions for one of his habits and temperament. He placed no 
 value on the mere enjoyment of the office or the emoluments 
 to be derived from it, but there were other considerations which 
 induced him to look for success with much pleasure. 68 Cameron 
 
POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP 33 
 
 learned in June of his appointment by the President but was 
 satisfied that he owed the appointment more to the President's 
 desire to retain the good opinion of Buchanan than to any kind- 
 ness towards himself. He felt that the "tongue of slander and 
 detraction" had been used against him in Washington. He be- 
 lieved that there was a chance of making some reputation in 
 the discharge of the duties as commissioner, and declared that he 
 would see that they were executed to the best of his ability. 69 
 
 An interesting interlude came between Cameron's appoint- 
 ment and his western journey on the Indian Commission. The 
 appointment had met with the disapproval of some — among 
 them Dr. Luther Reily of Harrisburg, Representative in Con- 
 gress from Cameron's district. A friendly member of Congress 
 wrote to Cameron that Dr. Reily "blows like hell and will 
 visit the President and Depts. on the subject." The district dele- 
 gates' meeting to nominate a Democratic candidate convened 
 shortly afterwards and, in order to vindicate himself against the 
 charges of Reily, Cameron sought and obtained for himself the 
 nomination. The situation can perhaps be best explained in 
 Cameron's own words: 
 
 I had believed the Doctor, personally my friend, and was therefore 
 much surprised and mortified. I had however, objected to his nomina- 
 tion [1836] on the ground of his not belonging to the party, though 
 I had a great personal regard for him, and we had to believe from his 
 own assertions that he did not wish to go to Congress. It seems how- 
 ever, I was mistaken, and that my objections at that time must have 
 rankled in his bosom. I never suspected it for I never bear malice my- 
 self, and judged him by that rule. But when I heard of his threats, my 
 course was soon taken. I knew the influence which his station gave him 
 at Washington, and I judged that his argument would be the old one 
 which you have often heard, and which I have seldom cared about con- 
 tradicting, viz.: that I am unpopular, that I am obnoxious to the party 
 and that I have no influence. Knowing this I determined at once to be 
 nominated as his successor, believing it would be the best reply I could 
 make to him. I accomplished it . . . without any of the exertions usually 
 resorted to. The old and the young men of the party were in the con- 
 vention and they gave me the nomination [nearly a unanimous vote] in 
 such a way as to make me proud. And that it will sustain you in the 
 kind of support you gave me in presenting my name to the Secry of 
 War is not the least part of my pride and gratification. I have not de- 
 termined to accept the nomination and told the delegates that I should 
 take time to reflect. 
 
34 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Having received the appt. I was not afraid it could be affected by 
 the ill feeling of the Doctor but I am fearful he might lower me in the 
 estimation of the Dept. and I wish to go on that mission with their full 
 confidence, so that if any reputation is to be acquired, I may have full 
 opportunity to make it mine. I have not yet received my instructions, 
 and cannot, therefore tell how long it will require my absence, or when 
 I shall have to start. My future movements will in some degree depend 
 on that. I will do nothing which can interfere with the mission. If I 
 should determine to be a candidate I believe I shall succeed, though 
 the odds at present look much against the success of our ticket. But I 
 have great confidence in my own exertions when centered on a single 
 object, and I know that the many little acts of kindness which I have 
 been privy to for the last 18 years, without asking for remuneration, 
 will like bread cast upon the waters, return to me whenever I look for 
 it. It is through friends of that kind, who are never suspected by my 
 enemies, that I have always triumphed, whenever I have had a desire to 
 carry a favorite object. 70 
 
 Cameron's assurance to Buchanan that he would do nothing 
 that would interfere with the Indian mission did not deter him 
 from actively organizing his campaign for election to Congress. 
 During the latter part of July he received his official notification 
 of appointment as a commissioner to examine the claims of the 
 half-breed relatives of the Winnebago Indians, and the debts 
 due by the same Indians, along with instructions and directions 
 that he should make arrangements to be in Prairie du Chien by 
 August twentieth. 71 This meant that he would have to be away 
 from Pennsylvania during the period when campaigning should 
 be most vigorous. He closed a letter to a business and political 
 friend with "I suppose I shall have to decline the Congress affair 
 though I had begun to think the election safe." 72 He felt that 
 his purpose of discrediting Reily was accomplished, and he was 
 satisfied. 
 
 General James Murray of Maryland was appointed co-com- 
 missioner with General Cameron to examine and pass upon the 
 Winnebago Claims. They were each to be allowed as compen- 
 sation eight dollars for every twenty miles of travel, by the 
 shortest and most direct practicable route, from their homes to 
 Prairie du Chien, in Wisconsin Territory, and return; the same 
 compensation for necessary travel in the Indian country; and 
 eight dollars for every day actually and necessarily otherwise 
 spent in the execution of their duties while there. 73 Due to low 
 
POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP 35 
 
 water in the Ohio and the Mississippi, they were obliged to take 
 the route of the northern lakes and did not arrive at their des- 
 tination until the twenty-ninth of August. They immediately 
 entered upon their duties. Many of the claims were presented 
 in a "queer manner" and the commissioners were frequently 
 under pressure from the claimants. They were determined that 
 justice should be done and settlements should be made according 
 to instructions. By late September, Cameron thought they would 
 be able to get away from Prairie du Chien by the eighth or 
 tenth of October. 74 Various matters delayed the conclusion of 
 their business and they did not leave St. Louis on the homeward 
 journey until the eighth of November. 
 
 General Cameron gained considerable notoriety as a result of 
 his connection with the settlement of the Winnebago Claims, 
 particularly the part which concerned payments to the half- and 
 quarter-blood relatives of the Winnebagoes. The instructions 
 from the Office of Indian Affairs were quite specific as to the 
 general routine to be followed and also designated considerable 
 discretionary powers to the commissioners. They were the same 
 as those issued to the commissioners appointed to examine simi- 
 lar claims under the treaty with the Sioux Indians. 75 These in- 
 structions indicated that the commissioners were to determine 
 the amount due each mixed-blood claimant and give him a certi- 
 ficate for the amount allowed him. This certificate with draft 
 for the amount drawn on Major E. A. Hitchcock, Military Dis- 
 bursing Agent, was the basis for payment to the claimant. Major 
 Hitchcock suspended payment of the Winnebago half-breed 
 money on the grounds that the commissioners had decided not 
 to require payments to the individual claimants but, almost ex- 
 clusively, to third parties, attorneys in fact, guardians, and trus- 
 tees. Furthermore, these persons were not required to give bond 
 for the faithful disposition of the money. Major Hitchcock's 
 action was sustained by T. Hartley Crawford, the commissioner 
 of Indian Affairs in the War Department, 76 and eventually a 
 new commissioner was appointed to re-examine and pass upon 
 the Winnebago Claims. The matter was not concluded for 
 another year. 
 
 The commissioners, Cameron and Murray, remained in Prairie 
 du Chien longer than would have been necessary if money for 
 
36 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 payment of the claims had been sent to them when expected. 
 Through no fault of the commissioners, the money was delayed. 
 Winter was near, and the Indians were becoming restless and 
 anxious to get back to their hunting grounds to provide food 
 for their families. Cameron and Murray were advised by Henry 
 Dodge, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Wisconsin Terri- 
 tory, that "a chief from each of the different bands will be 
 sufficient representation of the nation to sanction any official act 
 of yours." This would thus free most of the Indians to return 
 to their camping grounds. The matter was arranged in that 
 manner by a document addressed to the commissioners and 
 signed by fourteen of the Indian chiefs. The document specifi- 
 cally designated Nicholas Boilvin to act for them. The arrange- 
 ment, therefore, for settlement through a third party rather than 
 directly, was sanctioned by the Territorial Superintendent of 
 Indian Affairs and was satisfactory to the Indians concerned. 77 
 Concerning the failure to require those serving as trustees, etc., 
 to provide bond, the commissioners declared their instructions 
 did not give them the power to require such persons to provide 
 bond. Coming from men with the business experience of Cam- 
 eron and Murray this seems but a weak excuse. 
 
 Major Hitchcock filed with his report to the Commissioner 
 of Indian Affairs at Washington letters he had received from 
 General Joseph M. Street, Indian Agent with the Sacs and 
 Foxes. General Street said that his duties with these Indians kept 
 him away from Prairie du Chien the whole time the commis- 
 sioners were there and that he never saw them. He wrote ex- 
 tensively about wholesale frauds being perpetrated on the 
 Indians: that General Cameron "had brought on $60,000 in 
 notes on the Middletown bank of which he was cashier," and 
 intimated that these notes were used to purchase the half-breed 
 claims under pressure for a small fraction of their face value; 
 also that the commissioners worked in close collusion with a 
 lawyer named Daniel M. Brodhead, who came along with them; 
 that he, Brodhead, persuaded the Indians to sell their claims to 
 him for a fourth to a third of their face value. 78 General Street's 
 letters are couched in such terms as "an opinion that," "I am 
 told," and "the impression has obtained currency here." It was 
 on evidence such as this that payments were suspended, and 
 
POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP 37 
 
 that the commissioners' report of December fifteenth to the 
 Department was overruled. 
 
 Cameron and Murray felt that the Department should have 
 consulted them before harshly setting aside their proceedings. 
 On the sixteenth of February, they filed a joint letter with the 
 Secretary of War offering some suggestions in vindication of 
 the course they had pursued. This was followed by a letter from 
 Cameron on the twentieth with supporting testimonials, and a 
 long letter from Murray on the twenty-fourth. 79 Cameron de- 
 clared that he did take with him $5,000 in notes on the Middle- 
 town bank out of which he paid the expenses of himself and 
 family, and also the commissioners' contingent expenses, which 
 were thrown upon him in consequence of Major Hitchcock's 
 refusal to pay the commissioners' draft for contingencies. A 
 part of the balance he invested in land 80 and a part he took back 
 to Pennsylvania with him. As to the charge that the commis- 
 sioners brought Brodhead to Prairie du Chien with them, Mur- 
 ray declared that he never saw him or heard of him in his life 
 until they met on a steamboat at Detroit on the way to Chicago. 
 He saw Brodhead once again while he and Cameron were on a 
 side trip into Indian country on business of the commission, 
 and found him (Brodhead) at Prairie du Chien upon returning 
 there. As to their being a party to fraudulent speculations in 
 the purchase of claims, the commissioners in their joint letter 
 "assert, in the most unqualified manner, that, until after the 
 awards were made in favor of the mixed bloods, and the cer- 
 tificates delivered, we had no knowledge that speculations had 
 been made by attorneys in fact in those claims; and we chal- 
 lenge contradiction." If speculations were carried on as openly 
 and shamelessly as General Street intimated, it seems unreason- 
 able to believe that Cameron and Murray would not have 
 known about it. Cameron does not mention Brodhead in his 
 letter and it has not been possible to learn whether they were 
 acquainted prior to August 1838. 
 
 The commissioners did perhaps violate the letter of their in- 
 structions in permitting appearance by attorney-in-fact, and 
 the granting of certificates to those representatives, instead of 
 directly to the claimant. It will be remembered that the Super- 
 intendent of Indian Affairs for Wisconsin Territory, Henry 
 
38 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Dodge, advised certain action which was not in accord with 
 the letter of the commissioners' instructions. He recognized the 
 necessity of permitting many of the Indians to return to their 
 camping grounds to make preparations for winter. He probably 
 understood local conditions better than did the Commissioner of 
 Indian Affairs at Washington. Commissioner Crawford, in mak- 
 ing his report to the Secretary of War, did not take into consid- 
 eration extenuating circumstances and conditions, neither did 
 he call in Cameron or Murray to explain why they had not 
 followed the instructions according to his interpretation. Cam- 
 eron and Murray both deplored the spirit in which the Com- 
 missioner had written his report. They felt that as a result of 
 this report they must needs vindicate even their moral char- 
 acters from grave and serious charges. They both expressed a 
 desire to the Secretary of War for the fullest investigation of 
 all the facts and documents connected with their official pro- 
 ceedings. 
 
 Brodhead, in the letters of General Street and Major Hitch- 
 cock, was made, if not the villain in the case, at least one of the 
 fellow conspirators. In defense of the commissioners, Cameron 
 and Murray, and of his own part in the dealings, Brodhead sub- 
 mitted two long letters along with seven supporting documents 
 to Secretary of War Joel R. Poinsett. 81 He upheld the actions 
 of the commissioners in the mode of settlement of the Winne- 
 bago Claims and refuted the charges made against them. He 
 made no effort to shield himself; frankly stating his part as 
 both attorney in fact and speculator in claims, but denying such 
 a large number of cases as was intimated by General Street's 
 letters. He stated that he took something less than $40,000 to 
 Prairie du Chien with him. The nature of this currency is not 
 stated. 82 He maintained that his actions were on an honorable 
 business basis, and invited Poinsett to subject him to the severest 
 scrutiny. He suggested that Major Hitchcock was endeavoring 
 to explain away his own violation of duty by imputing frauds 
 to the commissioners and himself. 
 
 Brodhead showed that some of the charges made by General 
 Street were utterly false, as could be readily ascertained by an 
 examination of the commissioners' report on the settlement of 
 the mixed-blood claims; and that others were no more than repe- 
 
POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP 39 
 
 titions of petty fables and village scandal. He explained Gen- 
 eral Street's zealous witnessing for Major Hitchcock on the 
 ground of personal interest. His son T. P. Street was a mer- 
 chant and postmaster at Prairie du Chien, and his son-in-law 
 was the United States sub-agent for the Winnebagoes at the 
 same place. Brodhead had had difficulties with them and charged 
 them with gross official misconduct. He had made a distinct 
 and public pledge that when he returned home he would see 
 that their respective departments subjected their behavior to 
 scrutiny and censure. 
 
 Miss Ida M. Street, granddaughter of General Joseph M. 
 Street, published in 1905 an article of forty-nine pages on "The 
 Simon Cameron Indian Commission of 1838." 83 Her account 
 was presented from the point of view of her grandfather and 
 his friends. She revealed Cameron in the most unfavorable 
 light. More than forty-eight pages, almost one-half of the ma- 
 terial submitted by the War Department to the House of Rep- 
 resentatives and printed as Executive Docuinent Number 229, 
 consists of letters and documents supporting the action of the 
 commissioners and Brodhead. Miss Street disposed of this im- 
 portant portion of the record in a few brief paragraphs as of no 
 consequence. She made out that Cameron, Murray and Brod- 
 head constituted merely a group of fraudulent operators en- 
 deavoring to justify their acts after they had been caught. Her 
 insinuations were decidedly unfair to Cameron. 
 
 Miss Street's article was only one of many published about 
 Cameron during a period when muck-raking was the vogue. 
 Although the charges against Cameron were not proved, he 
 suffered unjustly, since the public knew far more about the 
 letters of General Street than it did about the other portion of 
 the material in the records. Stories of Cameron's transactions 
 with the Winnebagoes were repeated with garnishments and 
 embellishments until the facts were almost completely lost in 
 fable. 84 
 
 It required Cameron several months after his return from the 
 West to complete his connections with this, his first, federal 
 activity. He wrote to a close business associate shortly after his 
 return that his western trip had been neither very pleasant nor 
 profitable. " 
 
 85 
 
4 o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Judge John Fleming, Jr., was appointed as the new commis- 
 sioner to settle the Winnebago Claims. He went to Prairie du 
 Chien and met the Winnebagoes during September and October 
 of 1839. The Indians were rather unresponsive to this new 
 commissioner. They resented being called together again to 
 act anew on matters that they had done their part to settle in 
 the previous year. Concerning the rehearing of the claims of 
 the traders against them, for funds provided by the Federal 
 Government, the Indians would only confirm their settlements 
 agreed to before the 1838 commission. 86 The attitude of the 
 Winnebagoes and the action of the new commissioner, as well 
 as other news in Prairie du Chien, were reported to General 
 Cameron by letters from friends in Prairie du Chien and in St. 
 Louis. 87 Judge J. H. Lockwood wrote that General Street now 
 admitted that he had lied and wanted to beg off, after the mis- 
 chief had been done, because he had been found out. Lockwood 
 expressed the hope that after this affair was settled Cameron 
 would not rest until Street and his son Thomas were removed 
 from office. 88 General George M. Brooks, of Fort Crawford, 
 Prairie du Chien, had been informed earlier of General Street's 
 perjury and had written to Brodhead about it. 89 Cameron and 
 Murray had lodged at Fort Crawford during the first few days 
 in Prairie du Chien; later they arranged for quarters at the ho- 
 tel. Thus they became well acquainted with General Brooks, 
 who was the commanding officer at the Fort. He wrote to 
 Cameron during the summer of 1839 that he had not noticed 
 the least official impropriety in the conduct of the commission. 
 He had heard rumors, after the commission's departure, that 
 Cameron and Brodhead had been connected in speculating on 
 half-breed claims, but he could not and would not believe such 
 a report. He admitted knowing, however, that Brodhead had 
 bought up many claims, but he declared that the purchases were 
 made openly and publicly and that he could see no impropriety 
 in Brodhead's actions. 90 
 
 Cameron saw Judge Fleming in Philadelphia, by appoint- 
 ment, 91 after he had completed his work at Prairie du Chien, 
 and the Judge assured him that his conduct in the proceedings 
 in 1838 was satisfactory and that he would do the former com- 
 mission justice in his report. 92 A month later Fleming submitted 
 
POLITICAL APPRENTICESHIP 41 
 
 his report, as commissioner to settle the Winnebago Claims, to 
 T. H. Crawford, Commissioner of Indian Affairs. In his re- 
 port, referring to the former commission, Judge Fleming said: 
 
 It is due to the Department from which those Commissioners [Cameron 
 and Murray] received their Commission and instructions and is but 
 an act of common justice to themselves, in a personal point of view that 
 I should state that during the discharge of my official duties at Prairie 
 du Chien, no evidence came before me to impeach either their integrity 
 or their judgment. 93 
 
 In March, Fleming wrote a brief note to Cameron stating 
 that after innumerable disappointments he had closed all things 
 in the most satisfactory manner and that Cameron had come out 
 triumphant. 94 James Cooper, a member of Congress from Penn- 
 sylvania, expressed his willingness to aid Cameron in vindicating 
 his character from the aspersions cast upon it, and to place his 
 acts in a proper li^ht before the Committee on Indian Affairs 
 and before the country. 95 The genuineness and liberality of a 
 statement given by Cooper in the heat of a senatorial campaign 
 some years later, with Cameron as his opponent, should have 
 been sufficient to remove any stigma which still clung to Cam- 
 eron as a result of the Winnebago Claims controversy. 96 
 
 Cameron wrote to Buchanan in the spring following his re- 
 turn from Prairie du Chien that his own personal and pecuniary 
 interests, which had been expanding lately, had been so much 
 interfered with by his western trip and the trouble occasioned 
 by its adjustment at Washington that he could not give to the 
 political situation in Pennsylvania the time which he considered 
 necessary. He said he would do all he could, and advised Bu- 
 chanan to make his other friends work more and talk less than 
 they had been doing. 97 As a result of the disrepute acquired 
 from the Winnebago Claims controversy, Cameron passed for 
 a time into partial political eclipse. Even Senator Buchanan's 
 high opinion for Cameron's influence waned. In reality all that 
 Cameron had done thus far in state and national politics was but 
 the prologue to his entrance upon the political stage. His ca- 
 reer as a masterful politician can hardly be said to have begun 
 before 1840. 98 
 
CHAPTER III 
 CAMERON AND THE CONTEST OF 1844 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA, like other states, was engulfed by the 
 economic depression that swept over the nation in the late 
 thirties. Like certain other states, the enthusiasm for internal im- 
 provements had carried her to the brink of financial bankruptcy. 
 Unlike some of the other states, Pennsylvania succeeded in 
 maintaining her credit when faced not only with the huge state 
 debt that had accumulated, but also with the prostration of in- 
 dustry and trade resulting from the panic of 1837. 1 The burden 
 of retrieving the desperate situation fell largely upon the shoul- 
 ders of Governor David Porter, who served two terms, from 
 1839 to 1845. Against the rising demand, that was particularly 
 strong in 1840 and 1841, for repudiation of the debt, Porter 
 fought desperately to maintain the honor of the commonwealth. 
 He demanded that the reckless policy of continually undertak- 
 ing new public improvements be abandoned. He resorted to 
 additional borrowing; to the imposition of new taxes; and even 
 to the issuance of so-called relief notes by the state banks, se- 
 cured by the pledge of the state. Though for two years the 
 state was unable to pay the interest on its bonds, this interest 
 was added to the principal and eventually every dollar of the 
 indebtedness was paid in full. 2 
 
 Before the end of Porter's second term, Pennsylvania was 
 well on the road to economic recovery. 3 During the two decades 
 prior to the Civil War Pennsylvania made rapid strides in eco- 
 nomic development. Also her political life was replete with 
 problems which wrought transformations ultimately resulting 
 in the ascendancy of the new Republican Party. The growth 
 and expansion of industrial interests helped in the shaping of 
 new party alignments. Another factor of importance was the 
 slavery question, which increased in significance as the Civil 
 War period approached. Cameron's opposition to abolitionism 
 
CAMERON AND THE CONTEST OF 1844 43 
 
 was, at this time, based not upon moral or humanitarian con- 
 viction but rather upon its disruptive influences on party or- 
 ganization. He foresaw the coming struggle and wrote to Bu- 
 chanan concerning the issue: "The question ... I am afraid 
 will occupy more of public attention during the coming year 
 than will comport with the peace and good order of our state. 
 Every village is now cursed with some hired lecturer who is 
 daily engaged in adding fuel to the growing flame." 4 
 
 The shadow cast over Cameron by the Winnebago Claims 
 settlements made political leaders reluctant to do anything 
 which might indicate a close tie or association with him. In 1839 
 he endeavored to make peace with those who opposed him by 
 a considerable sacrifice of his own feelings. He thought he had 
 "squared" himself with John W. Forney, editor of the Lan- 
 caster Intelligencer only to find an article in that paper a week 
 later which greatly mortified him. 5 Such experiences were not 
 novel. Cameron was sensitive to the ostracism to which he was 
 being subjected. In some cases, he sensed a coldness to himself 
 and a reserve in the actions of persons to whom he felt most 
 closely attached politically. With the possible exception of his 
 support of Governor Shulze, Cameron gave his most loyal and 
 unwavering support, prior to 1845, to the advancement of the 
 political interests of James Buchanan. Yet he wrote to him in 
 1844: 
 
 For some cause or other, I don't feel as if I got your wishes and 
 opinions with the same unreserved confidence as I used to, and there- 
 fore I have a delicacy in acting for you as I would do, if I knew that 
 my acts would be properly construed. It may be that this feeling is all 
 on my side, and that the bad, very bad treatment I have received from 
 your intimate friends at Lancaster, makes me cool toward you, without 
 knowing it myself. But be that as it may, I could not be your opponent, 
 if I would, and so strong is my habit of being your friend, that I find 
 myself advocating your cause whenever there is a chance of serving 
 you. . . . Wherever your fortunes need a friend, I will be found. 6 
 
 With the same devotion to Buchanan's interests that he had 
 shown during the 'thirties, Cameron urged his re-election to the 
 United States Senate in 1842. This was the year for Pennsyl- 
 vania's gubernatorial election, and the choice of a governor and 
 members of the legislature would have great influence upon her 
 
44 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 choice of a United States Senator. Cameron's letters to Buchan- 
 an during this year were replete with reports on the progress 
 of the campaign, the state of politics in Pennsylvania; the atti- 
 tude of various individuals, both friends and opponents; advice 
 as to the best strategy against opponents; and always an opti- 
 mistic note in his expectancy of an easy victory. He was warned 
 against taking sides with some of the office-seekers in the state 
 because factional strife ran high with certain persons and might 
 result in unfavorable reaction. 7 Cameron was convinced that 
 some persons who Buchanan thought were his friends were not 
 treating him (Buchanan) fairly in Harrisburg, but that these 
 could be defeated. It would require vigorous and energetic 
 measures, he wrote, "and perhaps such as your prudence and 
 better judgment might not approve." 8 He was much mortified 
 and distressed at the treachery he saw in some of these men, 
 thought to be friends and supporters of Buchanan, and advised 
 that "we" should have someone of prudence and zeal that could 
 be depended upon to remain in Harrisburg and look out for 
 "our" interests. 9 Cameron also endeavored to win the friendship 
 and support of Governor Porter for Buchanan, and showed him 
 that for reasons of self-interest others had tried to poison him 
 
 against Buchanan. 10 
 
 The Democrats of Pennsylvania rejoiced at the outcome of 
 the October elections. The result of Governor Porter's cam- 
 paign was a majority greater than he had registered three years 
 earlier. The Democrats had a majority in both houses of the 
 legislature with a fifty-per-cent majority over the Whigs on 
 combined senate and house membership. 11 Cameron wrote ju- 
 bilantly to Buchanan: "Now the state is in your hands; and you 
 have only to tell your friends what you want done." 12 The 
 legislature met and organized on the third of January. Buchan- 
 an headed the list of nominees for the United States Senate, and 
 won an easy victory on the first vallot, by a vote of seventy-four 
 to fifty-four, over John Banks, his Whig opponent. Thus the 
 Senator was re-elected for six years from the fourth of March. 13 
 
 The elections in Pennsylvania, in both October and January, 
 were in accord with Cameron's interests and desires. His letters 
 of the following year reflect very little of political interest 
 either in state or in national affairs. His time was almost com- 
 
CAMERON AND THE CONTEST OF 1844 45 
 
 pletely absorbed by his business interests. However, his letters 
 of the early months of 1844, another year of national conven- 
 tions, campaigns, and elections, show that he had been keeping 
 abreast of men and issues and was ready to play an active part. 
 
 The Democratic Party could not reconcile itself to its 1840 
 defeat by the Whigs. Even before the inauguration of Harrison, 
 the friends of Van Buren resolved that they would bring him 
 forward again and elect him. The canvass of 1844, therefore, 
 lasted for four years and might have paralleled closely that of 
 1828 if Van Buren's chances had not been blown up at the Balti- 
 more Convention. 14 This movement of the Van Buren element 
 did not represent such unity of the Democratic Party as was 
 witnessed among the friends of Jackson at the earlier date. 
 Other candidates for the nomination appeared. Some of those 
 who did not think the nomination of Van Buren advisable 
 urged the claims of General Lewis Cass of Michigan. Colonel 
 Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky, who had served as Vice 
 President under Van Buren, received support from various 
 quarters in addition to that of his native state. 
 
 Colonel Johnson made a tour through the North, as far as Bos- 
 ten, in behalf of his own candidacy. Great Johnson meetings 
 were held in various parts of the country. Such a gathering met 
 in Harrisburg on the night of January twenty-third. Cameron 
 was opposed to the nomination of Van Buren and for the time 
 was inclined toward Johnson. He wrote to Buchanan on the 
 day of this meeting that he was very much inclined to attend 
 it and make a speech against Van Buren. He said that "the 
 masses" were in an uproar and needed only a leader to make 
 them blow up every chance of Van Buren's success in Pennsyl- 
 vania. 15 Due to the uncertainty and indecision of his friends, 
 Colonel Johnson was left in a quandary as to what course he 
 should follow in the convention. He summed up his position in 
 a letter of January twenty-eighth to the editor of the Globe, 
 the organ of the Democratic Party at the Capital. He stated 
 that some of his friends advised him not to submit his name to 
 the decision of the national convention, while others, more 
 numerous, wished him to accept the nomination for the office of 
 vice president provided a majority of the delegates should think 
 
46 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 it proper after choosing another for the office of president. He 
 declared further: 
 
 I am now, as I ever have been, identified with the democratic party. 
 I never expect to change that identity. The success of the measures of 
 that party are too dear to me to be jeoparded by any selfish considera- 
 tions on my part; and, therefore, I ask nothing and expect nothing, at 
 the hands of the convention, that will in any manner injure or hazard 
 the success of the common cause. If the convention in their wisdom, 
 should consider the use of my name for the first or second office or 
 for neither, as advisable, my acquiescence is heartily given. 16 
 
 Cameron was among those whose correspondence with John- 
 son favored his nomination for the presidency. In reply to Gen- 
 eral Cameron's letter communicating the proceedings of the 
 Johnson meeting held on the twenty-third of January, in which 
 the Kentucky Colonel was nominated for the presidency, John- 
 son wrote on the ninth of February reiterating in emphatic 
 terms the principles he had earlier expressed: 
 
 Under the firm conviction tha tthe principles and measures which now 
 divide the great political parties of the day are essentially the same which 
 separated them in 1789, I consider the triumph of our cause more to be 
 regarded than the election of any man to office, particularly myself. 17 
 
 The Democratic State Convention assembled in Harrisburg 
 on the fourth of March. Henry A. Muhlenberg, whom Cameron 
 was supporting, 18 was chosen and announced as the Democratic 
 candidate for Governor, 19 after which the convention turned its 
 attention to the question of presidential candidates. Preference 
 for Van Buren for the presidency was expressed in ninety-one 
 of the one hundred twenty-eight votes cast. Richard M. John- 
 son received thirty-six votes and Lewis Cass one. After this vote 
 Colonel Johnson was unanimously nominated for the vice presi- 
 dency. 20 
 
 Some weeks before the Baltimore Convention assembled a 
 large majority of the delegates were pledged to Van Buren, and 
 it seemed that his nomination would be inevitable. Those op- 
 posed to him, however, were bitter and determined. They de- 
 clared that if nominated he could not be elected, and that it 
 would be suicide for the party to nominate him. Cameron, 
 along with other protectionists, did not like the free-trade views 
 
CAMERON AND THE CONTEST OF 1844 47 
 
 of Van Buren. Dissension in the industrial states came from 
 this quarter, while, in the South, during the month prior to 
 the convention, much more bitter opposition to him arose as a 
 result of his views opposing the annexation of Texas. His opin- 
 ions on the Texas question were expressed in a letter of April 
 twentieth, published in N iles* Register of May 4, 1844. 21 The 
 same issue carried Henry Clay's Raleigh letter of April 17 
 which expressed opinions quite in harmony with those of 
 Van Buren. They both believed that the annexation would 
 mean war with Mexico and both regarded annexation without 
 the consent of Mexico as dishonorable. The sentiment of the 
 South was very strongly in favor of the "re-annexation" of 
 Texas and the question therefore became a political issue of 
 the first magnitude. Many who had been steadfast Van Buren 
 men only a month earlier began to hedge. Members of some 
 delegations from Southern states already instructed to vote for 
 Van Buren resigned rather than obey. Others declared that 
 they knew that the wishes of their constituents would be 
 modified by Van Buren's recently disclosed opinions, and there- 
 fore they would support another candidate. 22 
 
 In the meantime the friends of Cass, Johnson, and Buchanan 
 continued to urge the support of their favorite and endeavored 
 to turn the alienated Van Buren feeling to their advantage. 
 
 The Democratic members of the Pennsylvania legislature in 
 January of 1843, when notifying Buchanan of his re-election to 
 the Senate, expressed their desire to present his name to the 
 nominating convention of their party as the favorite candidate 
 of Pennsylvania for the presidency. While he was profoundly 
 grateful to them for this expression of their confidence and sup- 
 port, he was led in the following December "by an anxious 
 desire to drive discord from the ranks of the party, and secure 
 the ascendancy of democratic principles, both in the state and 
 throughout the union," to issue an address to the Democrats of 
 Pennsylvania withdrawing his name as a presidential candidate. 23 
 By May of 1844, many of his friends were again urging him to 
 enter the race with vigor. Cameron believed that Buchanan 
 could now be nominated if his case were well managed, and 
 advised him that he "should have some wise and skillful man in 
 Washington from now until the Convention, who would show 
 
48 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 the southern and western men the wisdom of coming out at 
 once for you." General Cass was making headway and his 
 friends were creating the impression that Buchanan was not a 
 candidate and could not carry his own state. Cameron felt that 
 Van Buren was losing the South and that if the Southern dele- 
 gates would come out at once for Buchanan then Pennsylvania 
 would be compelled to bring his forward. Cameron advised Bu- 
 chanan to throw off some of his reserve and endeavor to make 
 a party for himself. 24 
 
 Buchanan had just written a letter to Mrs. James J. Roose- 
 velt of New York, in which his private feelings on the whole 
 matter of this nomination were expressed freely. He recognized 
 that a large majority of the delegates had been pledged to Van 
 Buren, and that Van Buren's letter on the annexation of Texas 
 would cost him much Southern support. He still felt that he had 
 pursued the wise and proper course in withdrawing his name. 
 However, he recognized also that a very strong party in the 
 South would now favor his nomination, because the Texas 
 question had displaced the anti-tariff feeling there, and in all 
 other respects he would be acceptable to that portion of the 
 Union. 25 Buchanan was watching the pre-convention alignment 
 of delegates with close attention, but there seems to be no rea- 
 son to doubt the sincerity of his stated position. Two days be- 
 fore the convention opened, he replied to the questions of two 
 members of the Pennsylvania delegation that he could not be a 
 candidate against Van Buren before the National Convention. 
 He had withdrawn his name after a majority of the delegates 
 to that convention had been instructed or pledged to support 
 Van Buren. This was done for the purpose of concentrating 
 the strength of the party. In consequence of his act the dele- 
 gates of Pennsylvania also had been instructed to support Van 
 Buren. He was thus placed in a position where he felt himself 
 bound both in honor and in principle not to become a com- 
 petitor of Van Buren. He gave his consent to the presentation 
 of his name with certain qualifications: 
 
 Should Mr. Van Buren, after a fair trial, either be withdrawn by his 
 friends, or should they be satisfied that he cannot obtain the nomination; 
 & the Delegates from Pennsylvania be thus left at liberty to make a 
 second choice, — in that event I should felt myself restored to my orig- 
 
CAMERON AND THE CONTEST OF 1844 49 
 
 inal position & they would then have my consent to present my name 
 if they thought proper as a candidate to the Convention. 26 
 
 Cameron seemed unwilling to understand or accept the prin- 
 ciples which restrained Buchanan. He continued to urge 
 the support of Buchanan in Pennsylvania and, though, he had 
 failed in his effort to have the Pennsylvania delegation sent to 
 the convention without instructions and he himself was not 
 made a delegate, nevertheless he did go to Baltimore on May 
 twenty-fifth to be a first-hand observer and play any part he 
 could for Buchanan. 
 
 The Democratic National Convention convened in Baltimore 
 at noon on Monday, May 27, 1844. Immediately after the tem- 
 porary organization was affected, R. M. Saunders of North 
 Carolina moved that the rules of 1832 be adopted for the gov- 
 erning of this convention. The significance of Saunders' motion 
 was recognized at once. Though it had to give way to the 
 business of establishing the permanent organization of the con- 
 vention, it was the chief issue of debate that afternoon and was 
 debated for four hours the next morning. It was a motion for 
 the two-thirds rule which Saunders himself had submitted in 
 the 1832 convention and had championed in the interests of 
 Van Buren in the 1835 convention. If it were not adopted at 
 this time Van Buren could be sure of an easy victory in the 
 convention; if it were adopted, then he might be defeated. In 
 other words, a vote for the two-thirds rule would be a vote 
 against Van Buren, for it would make it more difficult for him 
 to obtain the nomination. The chief opponent of the motion was 
 Benjamin F. Butler of New York, who spoke for an hour in op- 
 position to the two-thirds rule. He had written to Van Buren 
 on Monday morning of the general excitement over the ques- 
 tion of the two-thirds rule, and declared that the fate of the 
 question would depend on Pennsylvania and Tennessee. "If 
 they stand firm . . . the rule cannot be imposed on us." 27 Butler 
 was supported by other delegates from Van Buren strongholds. 
 Saunders was supported on his motion by such persons as 
 Senator R. J. Walker of Mississippi, whose delegation had been 
 instructed in January for Van Buren but now stood for Cass; 
 and J. W. Tibbatts of Kentucky, whose delegation was in- 
 
5 o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 structed for Johnson. An analysis of the report of the debate 
 shows that the burden of argument for the two-thirds rule 
 rested largely upon the shoulders of the supporters of Cass and 
 Johnson, and in some cases on delegations earlier instructed for 
 Van Buren. 28 I. L. O'Sullivan in a report written to Van Buren 
 on Monday and Tuesday (May 27, 28) revealed that Virginia 
 also had an opportunity to defeat the two-thirds rule. The vote 
 stood one hundred thirty-one to one hundred eighteen with 
 Virginia still out, the members having retired for consultation. 
 Virginia's seventeen votes could have defeated the two-thirds 
 rule. Virginia, however, cast her votes for the rule. When the 
 result became known, O'Sullivan wrote, "Great cheering from 
 the world of Traitordom."- 9 Buchanan hardly entered the pic- 
 ture, and the extent of Cameron's work behind the scenes in 
 support of the two-thirds rule is pure conjecture. We do know 
 conclusively from his letters that he was strongly opposed to 
 the nomination of Van Buren, and that his friends of the Penn- 
 sylvania delegation voted for the two-thirds rule although 
 pledged to Van Buren. Therefore we have no reason to doubt 
 Cameron's position on the issue. 
 
 The vote on the Saunders motion was taken about one o'clock 
 on Tuesday, the second day of the convention. The two-thirds 
 rule was adopted by one hundred forty-eight votes to one hun- 
 dred eighteen. An analysis of these returns shows that the vote 
 of the delegates of the northern states was fifty-eight yeas to 
 one hundred four nays, and the vote of the delegates of the 
 southern states was ninety yeas to fourteen nays. The delegates 
 were perfectly aware that the adoption of the two-thirds rule 
 would greatly imperil the chances of Van Buren's nomination, 
 yet only four northern states and one southern state gave him 
 the unanimous support of their delegates, while four northern 
 state delegations and nine southern state delegations voted unani- 
 mously with the opposition. A further analysis shows that, if 
 the delegations whose states had previously passed resolutions 
 for Van Buren or instructed their delegations for him had voted 
 in his support, the two-thirds rule would have been over- 
 whelmingly defeated. 30 The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is 
 that a number of the delegates were willing that Van Buren 
 
CAMERON AND THE CONTEST OF 1844 51 
 
 should be sacrificed, and the Saunders motion was a convenient 
 method by which the purpose could be accomplished. 
 
 Balloting for the presidential candidate began that afternoon. 
 After seven ballots without the requisite two-thirds vote for 
 any candidate, the meeting adjourned until the next morning. 
 On the first ballot Van Buren had received one hundred forty-six 
 votes to a combined vote of one hundred twenty for other can- 
 didates, and except for the two-thirds rule would have been 
 selected with a majority of twenty-six votes. Of these votes, 
 twelve were from the one hundred five votes of the southern 
 states and one hundred thirty-four from the one hundred sixty- 
 one of the northern states. With each succeeding ballot of that 
 afternoon, his vote steadily declined, the seventh ballot giving 
 him only ninety-nine votes. The eighth ballot showed forty- 
 four votes for James K. Polk of Tennessee. During the ninth 
 ballot, Butler of New York made known that he had in his 
 possession a letter from Van Buren authorizing him to withdraw 
 his name from the convention at any moment that such a step 
 might be necessary to its harmonious action. He had consulted 
 other friends of Van Buren in the convention and with their 
 consent and advice he now withdrew Van Buren's name from 
 further consideration by the convention. This announcement 
 was greeted with loud cheers. Butler then stated that New 
 York's vote would be cast for James K. Polk, whom he eulo- 
 gized. 31 This was the signal for the convention to stampede to 
 the banner of Polk, who on this ballot received the unanimous 
 vote of the convention. During the afternoon session Senator 
 Silas Wright of New York was nominated by an almost unani- 
 mous vote, two hundred fifty-six, for the office of vice president. 
 Senator Wright was notified by telegraph and immediately re- 
 plied peremptorily declining the nomination. 32 The next morn- 
 ing, May thirtieth, George M. Dallas of Philadelphia was chosen 
 on the second ballot to be Polk's running-mate. 33 The author 
 finds little evidence to support Professor W. E. Dodd's view 
 that Cameron was one of the bosses who decided for Polk in 
 1844 and thereby made him the candidate of the party. 34 In- 
 stead, he was one of those balked by the swing of the Van 
 Buren forces to Polk. Cameron was for protection and though 
 he accepted Polk as the party nominee and worked for his 
 
52 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 election, he distrusted the sincerity of his statements on tariff. 
 Cameron's labors in 1844 were f° r tne success of the Demo- 
 cratic Party rather than the result of a deep personal interest 
 in the success of Polk. 
 
 The Van Buren men who were faithful to his interests re- 
 sented the "treachery" of those who had been instructed for 
 him but voted for the two-thirds rule. These true-blue Van 
 Buren delegates determined not to bolt the convention, as some 
 suggested they should do, but to remain and cast their vote in 
 such way as not to benefit the candidates supported by the two- 
 thirds rule advocates. Thus when they withdrew the name of 
 Van Buren they gave their support to Polk. 85 Strangely enough 
 the supporters of Polk had been grooming him for the office of 
 vice president and not until the eve of the convention was serious 
 consideration given to his name for the higher office. Their 
 energies were earlier expended in endeavoring to think of a 
 presidential candidate with whom to link Polk. The solution, 
 that of making him a presidential candidate, was seemingly very 
 remote from their minds. 36 
 
 The Democratic platform recommended the "re-occupation 
 of Oregon and the re-annexation of Texas at the earliest prac- 
 ticable period"; opposed alliance of the government with bank- 
 ing institutions; and favored tariff reform. 37 The Whigs on May 
 first had unanimously nominated Henry Clay by resolution and 
 on the third ballot had chosen Theodore Frelinghuysen of New 
 Jersey as his running-mate. 38 Their platform called for a well- 
 regulated currency, not mentioning a bank; provided for the 
 distribution of the proceeds from the sale of public lands; and 
 favored a protective tariff. 39 The failure of the Democrats to 
 nominate Van Buren and the determined attitude taken by them 
 on the Texas question upset the pre-convention design of Clay, 40 
 and baffled the hope of keeping the annexation question out of 
 the presidential campaign. Clay issued another letter on the 
 Texas question in which he greatly modified the position he 
 had taken in the Raleigh letter. 41 
 
 The tariff of 1842 had been popular in Pennsylvania because 
 of its protective features. While the Democrats of the South, 
 and many of Pennsylvania 42 and the North, desired to lower 
 the 1842 rates, Cameron opposed any downward revision. The 
 
CAMERON AND THE CONTEST OF 1844 53 
 
 tariff principles of Clay and the Whigs were very close to those 
 of Cameron. Polk, however, had some free-trade views, evi- 
 denced by his votes on tariff measures in Congress during the 
 previous two decades. The problem to be solved was that of 
 making Polk acceptable to the protectionists while at the same 
 time retaining the votes of free-traders. 
 
 On June 19, 1844, tnree weeks after the Democratic Con- 
 vention, Polk addressed a letter to John K. Kane of Philadelphia. 
 The first part of this letter was devoted to his own past record 
 on tariff measures: he voted against the tariff act of 1828, voted 
 for the tariff act of 1832, which contained modifications of some 
 of the provisions of the earlier act, and voted for the compro- 
 mise tariff act of 1833. This statement was for the benefit of 
 those favorable to free-trade. In the latter part of his letter he 
 declared that, in his judgment, it was 
 
 the duty of the government, to extend, as far as it may be practicable 
 to do so, by its revenue laws and all other means within its power, fair 
 and just protection to all the great interests of the whole Union, em- 
 bracing agriculture, manufactures, the mechanic arts, commerce, and 
 navigation. 
 
 He declared further that he heartily approved "the resolutions 
 upon this subject, passed by the democratic national convention, 
 lately assembled at Baltimore." 43 His expression, though rather 
 all-embracing and certainly open to double interpretation, was 
 seized upon by the friends of Polk in Pennsylvania and set forth 
 as declaring his favorable attitude towards protection. The cry 
 in Pennsylvania soon became: "Polk, Dallas, and the tariff of 
 1842." 
 
 In the Kane letter, Polk expressed his belief in a tariff for 
 revenue, sufficient "to defray the expenses of the government 
 economically administered." The "just protection" was, in his 
 view, incidental protection. Some weeks earlier, Senator Robert 
 J. Walker had advised Polk that "We must have the vote of 
 Pennsylvania in order to succeed," and, "you must go as far as 
 your principles will permit for incidental protection." 44 Polk 
 adhered quite closely to the historic doctrines of his party. The 
 letter was tortured into a promise of favorable protective tariff 
 in order to delude protection Democrats, but nothing in the 
 
54 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 letter itself warranted such a construction. 45 Nevertheless, as 
 Polk was cried up, Clay, the father of the "American system," 
 was systematically cried down as an enemy of protection, and 
 the voters of Pennsylvania were invoked in the name of pro- 
 tection of American industry to vote against him. Carl Schurz 
 has characterized this as "one of the most audacious political 
 frauds in our history." 46 
 
 Cameron had acquired large iron interest in Pennsylvania 
 and his hesitancy in the support of Polk was due to his appre- 
 hension that the Tariff of 1 842 would be overthrown by the suc- 
 cess of the Democratic candidate. His party regularity, however, 
 overbalanced his judgment as to the economic principles of the 
 candidate, and he labored for the success of the party in the 
 November election. 
 
 Cameron's apprehensions regarding Polk's tariff principles 
 were confirmed when in 1846 the Polk Democrats did succeed 
 in passing a measure lowering the rates of the act of 1 842 . Cam- 
 eron at that time was in the United States Senate and worked 
 with the Clay Whigs in a vain struggle to sustain the earlier 
 measure. 
 
 Pennsylvania was regarded by the Democrats as a key state 
 for their success in 1844. Cameron desired to play the game as 
 shrewdly as possible and to gain from the administration recog- 
 nition of Pennsylvania's responsibility for the victory. He con- 
 tinued to look to Buchanan's advancement as the political hope 
 of his native state, and wrote to Buchanan early in July that 
 "The acceptance of Polk for one term only, will do him good. 
 His letter on the tariff too, is I think well expressed. . . . You 
 must go for him zealously. He must owe the state to you; and 
 you can . . . command the nomination in '48. " 47 He further ad- 
 vised Buchanan to leave Lancaster and move to Philadelphia, 
 where he would be clear of all cliques, and thus not be affected 
 by the follies of his friends. Here he would have greater oppor- 
 tunity to see all the active men of the party as they visited the 
 city. 48 He urged Buchanan to cast off his reserve, declaring that 
 he had never done justice to himself because of neglecting to 
 gratify and flatter his constituents and to see and be seen by 
 them on more occasions. 49 
 
 As the campaign progressed the people of Pennsylvania were 
 
CAMERON AND THE CONTEST OF 1844 55 
 
 convinced that Polk would favor a protective tariff. Buchanan 
 wrote to Polk in September concerning the general situation in 
 Pennsylvania, and expressed the belief that he would carry the 
 Keystone by a fair majority. He declared also that "your dis- 
 creet and well-advised letter to Mr. Kane on the subject of the 
 Tariff has been used by us with great effect." 50 Muhlenberg, 
 while a member of the House of Representatives, had become 
 well acquainted with Polk, and desired to bring about a more 
 cordial relationship between Polk and Cameron. He pointed 
 out to Polk that Cameron occupied a strong position in the 
 Pennsylvania Democracy, that "No man knows Pennsylvania 
 better than he does and he can give you much valuable and 
 correct information as to its present political state." 51 He was 
 apparently successful, for correspondence between Polk and 
 Cameron was begun and Cameron confirmed Buchanan's view 
 that the Kane letter was used effectively to hold the Pennsyl- 
 vania voters in line. "We have succeeded in fixing the belief," 
 he wrote to Polk, "that you are as good a tariff man as Clay," 
 and added significantly that no man known to be opposed to 
 a protective tariff could possibly carry the state. 52 Polk did 
 nothing to undeceive his supporters in Pennsylvania nor did he, 
 on the other hand, in any of his public utterances commit him- 
 self to a tariff for protective purposes. 53 Shortly after the elec- 
 tion the Sunbury American stated that the people who were al- 
 most unanimous for a tariff that would help the manufacturing 
 establishments had voted for Polk "with a firm belief that he 
 would foster their interests, as they had been assured by himself 
 and his friends." 54 
 
 The Democrats carried Pennsylvania by a "fair majority" 
 though probably not the "handsome majority" Buchanan had 
 hoped for. 55 Polk had a clear majority of more than three thous- 
 and votes over the combined vote for Clay of the Whigs and 
 James G. Birney of the Abolitionists, 56 with an advantage of 
 more than six thousand votes over Clay. Pennsylvania, there- 
 fore, was returned to the Democratic column in presidential 
 elections after having gone Whig by a very narrow margin four 
 years earlier. 
 
 Pennsylvania's gubernatorial election had taken place in 
 October. The sudden death of Henry A. Muhlenberg, the can- 
 
56 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 didate of the Democratic Party, in the midst of the campaign, 
 provided an opportunity to test the strength of the elements in 
 the Democratic Party. Feeling ran high between the supporters 
 of Muhlenberg and of Francis R. Shunk prior to the time of 
 Muhlenberg's nomination. Very soon after his death the State 
 Central Committee called a convention and Shunk was 
 made the nominee. This was in harmony with strong public 
 sentiment. The problem remained for Shunk to allay any hos- 
 tility among the Muhlenberg supporters that might have car- 
 ried over from the earlier contest. Buchanan proved to be a 
 good friend to Shunk. He talked with the editors, assuring 
 them that Shunk would forget all that had transpired before his 
 nomination, and that he would be the last man to harbor any 
 resentment against those who had sustained Muhlenberg. 
 He advised Shunk to pursue a course of wisdom and caution; 
 Shunk must conciliate the Muhlenberg element by every hon- 
 orable means, and the former Muhlenberg friends ought to be 
 informed that they would have a fair share of the Governor's 
 patronage. Shunk's special attention was called to General Cam- 
 eron who was "a man of warm temperament and of strong 
 personal attachments." He had been a devoted friend to Muhl- 
 enberg, declaring: "I have ever considered him the life and soul 
 of the Muhlenberg party. His energy and activity and skill will 
 always make him a formidable foe or a useful friend." Buchanan 
 had seen Cameron on the train the day before and believed from 
 their conversation that he was sincerely desirous of supporting 
 Shunk. Buchanan felt that it would be wise for Shunk to show 
 Cameron that he cherished no personal hostility to him. 57 
 
 Buchanan's conversation with Cameron undoubtedly had 
 some effect in gaining Cameron's support for Shunk. Cameron's 
 feeling of party loyalty also led him in that direction. It was the 
 attitude of the personal friends of Shunk, rather than that of 
 Shunk himself, that made Cameron's problem difficult. They 
 opposed Cameron's presiding over a Democratic meeting in 
 Harrisburg, which opposition "only tended more fully to ex- 
 pose their folly and weakness." Cameron declared to Buchanan 
 that the actions of these men would have no effect upon his 
 course until after the election. He would give Shunk his cordial 
 support and take Buchanan as security that their actions would 
 
CAMERON AND THE CONTEST OF 1844 57 
 
 not be countenanced by Shunk. For a fuller statement of his 
 position in regard to Shunk, he referred Buchanan to the Harris- 
 burg Union, which published his address upon taking the chair 
 at the above-mentioned meeting. 58 
 
 The Democrats carried on a vigorous campaign with the re- 
 sult that in the October election, Shunk defeated his Whig op- 
 ponent, General Joseph Markle, though his margin of victory 
 was less than five thousand votes. 59 After the Whigs lost the 
 Governor's election they redoubled their efforts in Pennsyl- 
 vania for the national elections of November. The Democrats 
 of eastern Pennsylvania called upon their Governor-elect for 
 aid in the campaign. He stumped the area east of the mountains 
 for Polk, with great effectiveness. 60 The victory was won for 
 Polk, but with a majority somewhat less than that attained by 
 Shunk. 
 
 Cameron had advised Buchanan during the campaign that he 
 must by his efforts make Polk feel that he owed Pennsylvania's 
 vote to him. Polk was thoroughly convinced of the importance 
 of Pennsylvania's vote in his victory. Cameron was highly 
 gratified therefore that Polk offered the chief post in his cabi- 
 net to Buchanan. On February seventeenth Polk sent to Bu- 
 chanan a copy of his inaugural address for his perusal, and ac- 
 companied it with a letter setting forth his views and opinions 
 relative to cabinet positions and tendering to him the office of 
 Secretary of State. Buchanan replied the following day, ac- 
 cepting the office and expressing his gratitude to the President- 
 elect. 61 
 
 Although the formal offer of a cabinet office to Buchanan 
 was not made until February seventeenth, it had been well 
 known for many weeks that such an offer would be made. In 
 December Cameron had reported to Buchanan that there was 
 much speculation in Harrisburg about the senatorship. He de- 
 clared that he was beginning to stand pretty high in the esti- 
 mation of several gentlemen "whose notice flatters me very 
 much." 62 Early in January the members of the Pennsylvania 
 legislature were concerned about the electing of a United States 
 Senator necessary to fill the remainder of Buchanan's term after 
 he should go into the cabinet. Cameron became very much 
 worked up about the intrigue developing in Harrisburg relative 
 
58 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 to the senatorship and also the desire of some to shelve Buchan- 
 an politically. Buchanan counseled him through Henry Welsh 
 to keep cool about matters. He replied that he would do so "but 
 there is much forebearance required. Your enemies are in the 
 ascendent and I am the scape goat. I will bide my time." 63 He 
 wrote to Buchanan on February eighth that Vice President- 
 elect Dallas was endeavoring to get into his own hands the 
 distribution of patronage in Pennsylvania. He said also that 
 Dallas' friends in Philadelphia were exceedingly desirous of ar- 
 ranging a judicial appointment for Buchanan as a means of eas- 
 ing him out of the political picture. Cameron and his friends 
 were doing what they could to counteract such movements, 
 and he had no fear that the Dallas faction would prevent Bu- 
 chanan from being "at the head of Mr. Polk's cabinet." He 
 added somewhat mysteriously: "I will tell you, one of these 
 days, in confidence who will succeed you in the Senate." 64 
 
 Buchanan resigned as United States Senator the day after 
 Polk's inauguration, and the Pennsylvania legislature was faced 
 with the task of electing his successor for the four years re- 
 maining of his unexpired term. The Whigs knew that there was 
 no probability that they would be able to elect a candidate of 
 their own, because of the Democratic majority in the legisla- 
 ture, and therefore held no caucus and made no nomination. 
 The Democratic members of the legislature assembled in cau- 
 cus on the evening of March twelfth. George W. Woodward 
 of Luzerne, a promising young judge of the Centre judicial 
 district, was selected by more than a two-thirds vote as the can- 
 didate of the party. He favored a tariff for revenue with inci- 
 dental protection. 65 He was thus in harmony with Polk's 
 avowed policy. The party had a majority of twelve in the 
 legislature on joint ballot and his election should have been 
 assured. However, a number of the Democrats regarded this 
 nomination as a violation of the tariff pledges made to the people 
 during the campaign, and refused to support the caucus nomi- 
 nee. 66 Since the November election it had been established that 
 the leadership of the Democratic Party was in the hands of 
 those who favored the principle of tariff for revenue, and gave 
 little consideration to protection. 67 The recently delivered Presi- 
 dential Inaugural Address contained little of comfort for the 
 
CAMERON AND THE CONTEST OF 1844 59 
 
 Pennsylvania protectionists. Cameron, recognized as one of the 
 leading protectionists of the state, had a sufficient number of 
 supporters of that principle among the Democrats in the legis- 
 lature to hold the balance of power between the Whigs and the 
 administration Democrats. McClure credits Cameron with hav- 
 ing conceived and successfully executed the plan of uniting the 
 protectionist Democrats and the Whigs to elect himself to the 
 Senate. 68 The sincerity of Cameron's devotion to protection was 
 undoubted. He had been urging protection in his writings and 
 public utterances for the past two decades, and at that time one 
 of his largest interests was the manufacture of iron. 
 
 General Cameron was formally addressed by letter, by sev- 
 eral gentlemen belonging to the Native American Party, 69 and 
 also by several belonging to the Whig Party, inquiring his views 
 regarding some of the outstanding political issues of the day. 
 The Native Americans were interested in making more string- 
 ent the naturalization laws and sought his views on the ques- 
 tion. He wrote that he would respect the rights of all persons 
 born abroad who had become citizens under our laws, but with 
 the growth of the country and its population he believed it 
 would become necessary to extend the term of probation of 
 foreigners before granting to them citizenship. The Whigs in- 
 quired concerning his views on distribution of the proceeds of 
 the sales of public lands among the states. He replied that he 
 would support such a measure, and added that he believed the 
 best application Pennsylvania could make of her share would 
 be its employment in the discharge of the state debts. Both 
 groups asked his views on the tariff. On this question he said: 
 
 During the recent presidential election, the tariff of 1842 was much 
 discussed. The democratic party of this state took a decided stand in 
 favor of this measure. The leading interests of the state are involved in 
 its preservation. The people, without distinction of party, concur in de- 
 siring that its provisions should remain unaltered, and regard any at- 
 tempt to change them as hazardous to the interest of American industry. 
 Supported by the democratic party of the state in my views, and feel- 
 ing the importance of the measures to Pennsylvania, I have no hesita- 
 tion in declaring that I am in favor of the tariff of 1842, and if elected 
 to the senate of the U. States, I will sustain it without change. 
 
6o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 He added that this reply was merely a repetition of his long- 
 entertained and often expressed sentiments. 70 
 
 Balloting for the election of United States Senator took place 
 on March thirteenth. Judge Woodward's vote showed great 
 consistency on the part of his supporters varying from a low 
 of fifty-three on the second ballot to a high of fifty-six on the 
 fourth ballot. Cameron's vote showed a steady increase of ten 
 or more votes on each successive ballot as votes were gradually 
 transferred to him from the Whig and Native American can- 
 didates. 71 On the fourth ballot Cameron had fifty-five to Wood- 
 ward's fifty-six, with nineteen scattered votes. The fifth ballot 
 gave Cameron sixty-six votes, Woodward fifty-five, and five 
 scattered. Cameron was thereupon declared duly elected Senator 
 of the United States in the place of the Honorable James Bu- 
 chanan. 72 Sixteen of Cameron's votes came from the Democratic 
 members of the legislature, six or seven from the Native Ameri- 
 cans, and the remainder from the Whigs. This victory for Cam- 
 eron is an indication that the people of Pennsylvania, without 
 distinction of party, favored retention of the principle of pro- 
 tection in tariff policy. Commenting on the results of the Penn- 
 sylvania senatorial election, the New York Courier and En- 
 quirer took the position that since Cameron had answered the 
 questions propounded to him by the Whigs prior to his election, 
 on the tariff of 1842 and the distribution of the proceeds from 
 the sale of public lands, so decidedly and unequivocally in the 
 affirmative there could be no doubt as to the course the new 
 Pennsylvania Senator would follow. 73 
 
 It will be recalled that Cameron had written to Buchanan 
 from Harrisburg on February eighth that he would tell him 
 some day, in confidence, who would succeed him in the Sen- 
 ate. 74 Again from Harrisburg, he wrote immediately after his 
 election, "I have kept my promise — I am your successor." 75 
 This letter was returned to Cameron some years later and he 
 penned the following note on the back: "I told Mr. Buchanan 
 in Washington, in Feb. 1845, that I would succeed him in the 
 U. S. Senate." Apparently Cameron had conferred with Senator 
 Buchanan on the matter of his successor without obtaining the 
 hearty support and co-operation he had expected. Lewis S. 
 Coryell, a friend of General Cameron's, explained Cameron's 
 
CAMERON AND THE CONTEST OF 1844 61 
 
 victory and Woodward's defeat on grounds of reaction. Wood- 
 ward had the caucus machinery in his favor. He was a devoted 
 Bentonian. Also he was very hard on the foreigner in that he 
 proposed in convention twenty-one years probation for citi- 
 zenship and the prohibition of office-holding by them in Penn- 
 sylvania. Coryell felt that the legislature elected Cameron as the 
 most effective means of getting rid of Woodward. He expected 
 Cameron to be perfectly orthodox in all his voting, except on 
 the tariff, and believed he would not be very obstinate on that. 76 
 
 Buchanan openly showed his disappointment at the defeat 
 of Woodward, although he does not seem to have exerted him- 
 self in behalf of the election of the caucus nominee. Cameron 
 felt that his own long years of service in the advancement of the 
 political interests of Buchanan merited reciprocation now on 
 Buchanan's part. Buchanan, however, recognized that the pro- 
 tectionist principles of Cameron were out of harmony with the 
 tariff views of the new administration and therefore felt obliged 
 to withhold his support. John W. Forney, a Buchanan lieu- 
 tenant, with less restraint than most of Cameron's opponents 
 and with unmerited insinuation wrote to a friend on the day 
 following the election, "Simon Cameron's the Senator! God save 
 the Commonwealth." 77 The year 1845 marked the beginning of 
 a break in the relations of Cameron and Buchanan which until 
 that time had been cordial and friendly, and, on the part of the 
 former, at times almost worshipful. Their correspondence, 
 which often in the past had been rather heavy, suddenly de- 
 clined and far fewer letters passed between them during the 
 succeeding years. 
 
 The defeated branch of the Democratic Party was unwilling 
 to accept the results of the election quietly. The group assem- 
 bled in Harrisburg on March fourteenth, the day after Cam- 
 eron was elected to the United States Senate, and unanimously 
 resolved "that a committee of seven be appointed to draft an 
 Address to the democratic party of the state, stating the means 
 used to defeat the election of the democratic nominee for U. S. 
 Senator." At a subsequent meeting, a month later, attended by 
 nine senators and thirty-eight representatives, the committee 
 reported an "Address to the Democracy of Pennsylvania" to- 
 gether with letters from George M. Dallas and James Buchanan. 
 
6i SIMON CAMERON 
 
 The committee had previously addressed letters to Dallas and 
 Buchanan calling upon them to condemn "the disorganizing 
 conduct of an individual whose pledge to whigs and natives 
 should, and we believe will, sever him from the association and 
 confidence of the democratic party." Cameron became aware 
 of an organized attack being made upon him by the Democratic 
 members of the legislature who had supported Woodward, and 
 had been told that Buchanan had agreed to reply to their letter 
 of denunciation of him. To this Cameron wrote: 
 
 This of course I do not believe. It is bad enough to be slandered by 
 your confidential friends, but I should weep for human nature, if I 
 could believe that you, whom I have served only as a son serves a father 
 for 1 2 years, whom I have loved for his purity and honesty — could suffer 
 fears engendered by the clamor of disappointed opponents to induce 
 you to use your position, which I have so materially aided in making 
 to do me wrong. I repeat, that I do not think so badly of you. 
 
 Feeling confident in my own strength, I have never asked any aid 
 from you. I do not ask any, but I do expect that the men who breathe 
 only by your permission shall retract their slanders. . . . 
 
 I have told all leading men here who are about the Governor that I 
 prefer peace, but if a war is to wage it shall not be one-sided war. 78 
 
 The Address compared the recent defeat of the low-tariff 
 Democrats to the defeat of Andrew Jackson in 1825, and de- 
 clared the election of Cameron was accomplished by a coalition 
 of sixteen Democratic members of the legislature, less than one- 
 fourth of the Democratic strength, with the Whigs and Natives, 
 as a result of Whig negotiations with him in which it became 
 apparent that his view regarding the tariff and the distribution 
 of the proceeds from the sale of public lands were in agreement 
 with their principles. In the replies of Dallas, March twenty- 
 fourth, and Buchanan, March thirty-first, each refused to issue 
 any censure of the personal conduct of Cameron, while both 
 condemned strongly the lack of party loyalty which made possi- 
 ble his election. Buchanan believed that to push the matter 
 further would only cause more party dissension and advised 
 that for the sake of party harmony they submit to the result of 
 the recent election and leave the censure of the recalcitrant 
 members to the action of their respective districts. 79 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 UNITED STATES SENATOR 
 
 DURING THE summer of 1844 several friends of Polk 
 proposed that a newspaper more friendly to the southern 
 wing of the Democracy be substituted for the Globe, established 
 in 1830, which was edited by Francis P. Blair and John C. Rives 
 and had been the leading Democratic organ at the Capital since 
 that time. Polk favored such a proposal as a means of uniting 
 the various elements of the party, particularly because he felt 
 that Blair's recent course as editor of the Globe had indicated 
 anything but personal or political friendship for himself. 1 In 
 April, 1845, after the consideration of various plans, the Globe 
 was purchased from Blair and Rives, and the Union was estab- 
 lished and became the organ of the Polk administration. Thomas 
 Ritchie, for many years editor of the Richmond Enquirer, was 
 installed as editor and Major John P. Heiss of Tennessee as 
 business manager. 2 
 
 Public interest and curiosity concerning the fall of the Globe 
 were aroused on two phases of the matter: first, the influences 
 that led to the change in party organ; second, the source of 
 the funds that were necessary for the purchase of the Globe. 
 
 The Benton-Blair-Rives story of the influences which led to 
 the change in the organ, namely, that a deal was made with a 
 friend of Calhoun (F. W. Pickens) for South Carolina's sup- 
 port and with President Tyler for his withdrawal from the 
 presidential race on the basis of the ousting of Blair, 3 seems none 
 too well founded. Pickens' report to Calhoun of his conver- 
 sations with Polk does not support the statement of Benton, 4 
 and Tyler categorically denied that he had taken any part in 
 forcing the withdrawal of Blair and Rives from the Globe? 
 With the Globe representing the Jacksonian Democrats, the 
 Madisonian representing the followers of John Tyler, and the 
 Constitution upholding Calhoun and the ultra-southern Demo- 
 
64 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 crats, there certainly was need of some organ to unify the fac- 
 tions of the Democratic Party. 
 
 However, a wholly sufficient cause for the removal of Blair 
 and his influence may be found in Polk's own feelings on the 
 subject. Polk, as President, could not continue the Globe as the 
 official organ of the Democratic Party, especially with Blair as 
 editor, because on numerous occasions in the past five years 
 Blair had either openly snubbed or at least passively neglected 
 him. These views Polk confided to the pages of his Diary after 
 expressing them to Senator William Allen of Ohio, who, in the 
 spring of 1846, had urged upon him the appointment of Blair 
 as associate editor of the Union? Polk himself must be credited 
 with having determined the removal of Blair. Before it was de- 
 cided to abandon the Globe the names of several persons to re- 
 place Blair as editor had been suggested. Early in March of 1 845 
 Cameron wrote to Andrew J. Donelson, nephew of Andrew 
 Jackson, proposing that Donelson become the editor of the new 
 government organ. Donelson refused to have anything to do 
 with the proposition because of his friendship for Blair and be- 
 cause his acceptance would be a denial of the correctness of the 
 general policy of the Globe, with which he agreed. 7 The se- 
 lection of Ritchie as editor of the new organ was made very 
 shortly thereafter. 
 
 The second topic which excited the curiosity of the political 
 observers was the question of the source of funds with which 
 the Globe was purchased and the Union established. According 
 to the Benton-Blair-Rives version of the story, Simon Cameron 
 in November, 1844, had obtained an order from George M. 
 Bibb, Tyler's Secretary of the Treasury, for the transfer of 
 fifty thousand dollars of government funds from a bank in Phil- 
 adelphia to the Bank of Middletown. These funds were used 
 by Cameron to pay three annual installments on the purchase of 
 the Globe, and the Treasury did not reclaim the money from 
 the Bank of Middletown during that period. Robert J. Walker 
 was Polk's Secretary of the Treasury and Benton declared that 
 he "was the chief contriver and the zealous manager of the ar- 
 rangements which displaced Mr. Blair and installed Mr. Rit- 
 chie." 8 
 
 In 1 850- 1 85 1, a controversy arose concerning these funds 
 
UNITED STATES SENATOR 6 5 
 
 when Rives published charges in his re-established Globe. The 
 matter was aired in the columns of the Union. Former President 
 Tyler scornfully denied the slightest cognizance of the alleged 
 financial transactions. Not denying that money might have been 
 placed on deposit in the Middletown bank, he declared that if 
 such were the case he had no doubt it was done for reasons en- 
 tirely satisfactory to the secretary of the treasury and on se- 
 curities of the most ample character. He further stated that, if 
 Secretary Walker did not withdraw the funds until 1847, it 
 was doubtless because of considerations having exclusive refer- 
 ence to the public interests. 9 Walker, whom Tyler characterized 
 as "fully equal to the task of explaining his own course," cir- 
 cumstantially denied any collusion on his part in regard to the 
 funds in the Middletown bank. Ritchie told what he knew about 
 the financial arrangement. Admitting that he knew very little, 
 he denounced the allegations of Rives. Major Heiss wrote con- 
 cerning Cameron: "We never received one dollar from him as 
 a loan, nor did he advance one dollar toward the purchase of 
 the Globe newspaper." 10 Beyond this Heiss was uncommunica- 
 tive. When the Globe was purchased it was well-known that 
 neither Ritchie nor Heiss was financially in a position to make 
 the deal for himself; yet Heiss had met the annual installments 
 and Ritchie said in 1851 that Heiss to that day had never in 
 formed him from what source he derived the necessary funds. 
 
 In spite of such categorical statements, the answer to the 
 question is not evident. Rives had re-established the Globe in 
 1848 and, in his controversy with Ritchie, he published several 
 letters, or extracts from letters, of Jackson to Blair. Jackson 
 knew of Cameron's interest in the establishment of a new party 
 organ. He looked upon Blair and the Globe as his god-children 
 and any attack upon them as an attack upon himself. He re- 
 ferred to Cameron in his letters to Blair, on April eighth and 
 ninth, in a most uncomplimentary manner. On April seven- 
 teenth Blair wrote to Jackson giving the Middletown bank 
 story. The fifty-thousand-dollar treasury deposit had been made 
 in Cameron's bank before Tyler left the presidency. Cameron 
 had since made a conditional purchase of the Madisonian, which 
 in the end would be swallowed up. Blair continued: "Cameron 
 is here now, and, although I know nothing of his having any- 
 
 11 
 
66 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 thing to do in connection with the purchase of the Globe, it is 
 not improbable that he has some dominant interest, inasmuch as 
 he has long had a hankering to supplant it." 12 
 
 Further evidence is found in a letter of William A. Harris, a 
 former member of the House of Representatives from Virginia 
 and later the editor of Calhoun's newspaper the Constitution. 
 He wrote to Calhoun in the summer of 1 845 : 
 
 You probably do not know the partners in the Union. Ritchie owns 
 one half [sic], Heiss a fourth, J. Knox Walker the President's nephew 
 and private secretary a fourth, and Senator Cameron of Pennsylvania 
 did hold the other fourth, but for some reason or other they made him 
 sell out, and it now stands in the name of L. S. Coryell of Pennsylvania, 
 who has from the first been a very active agent in the business; though 
 he assures me that he really had no pecuniary interest in it. 13 
 
 The above letter is supported by letters of Cameron to Cory- 
 ell, and of Cameron and Coryell to Heiss. On March 31, 1845, 
 Cameron wrote to Coryell: "I have my eye on the 'organ' and 
 am to be informed when the funds are needed." Two weeks 
 later he again wrote to Coryell: "If only 1/3 of $40,000 is need- 
 ed, it will be easily arranged. I suppose Heiss is to find only 1/2 
 of that 3d." 14 Shortly after the last installment on the purchase 
 of the newspaper was due, Cameron wrote to Heiss, on May 
 27, 1847: "I have your note of 22nd and thank you for paying 
 the note. I expect to be in Washington before long and will 
 bring with me the papers alluded to." A note penned on this 
 letter, and dated June 15, 1847, in the handwriting of Heiss 
 states, "This letter is in answer to my request to Senator Cam- 
 eron, to send the papers to me showing him to be the owner of 
 one fourth of my interest in the Union office. I have purchased 
 his interest in said office and paid him for the same in full. He 
 still holds the papers." 15 In a letter from Coryell to Heiss six 
 months later, he recalled the final transactions between General 
 Cameron and Heiss and the part he himself had played in ad- 
 vising both parties. Heiss had offered Cameron thirteen thous- 
 and dollars plus certain claims, the same amount he was to pay 
 J. Walker Knox for his fourth-interest. Cameron countered 
 with an offer to sell for fourteen thousand and relinquish all 
 claims. After some negotiations settlement was completed. 16 
 
UNITED STATES SENATOR 67 
 
 Rives, in his attack on Ritchie, alleged that Cameron, testify- 
 ing before a congressional committee, had admitted that he had 
 advanced money to Heiss and that this part of the testimony 
 was suppressed. 17 Blair made much of the point that Cameron 
 had admitted furnishing the money for the payments and that 
 the obliging committee had omitted this from their report by 
 request. 18 The statement of Major Heiss that Cameron had 
 never made him a loan or an advance of money for the purchase 
 of the Union certainly is not borne out by the evidence. The 
 correspondence shows that Cameron for some years did own an 
 interest in the Union. 
 
 Senator Buchanan in 1844 had recommended General Cam- 
 eron's Bank of Middletown as a safe depository for a portion of 
 the public money. Blair raised the fifty-thousand-dollar inci- 
 dent as a specter to haunt him in his campaign for the presidency 
 in 1856. A decade later Buchanan in a letter to Horatio King 
 betrayed some uneasiness on the subject but attempted to as- 
 sume a nonchalant manner. 19 
 
 More evidence of Cameron's participation in the overthrow 
 of the Globe is presented in a letter from Blair to Cameron of 
 1856. It must be remembered that at that time both men had 
 left the Democratic Party, and were leaders in the establish- 
 ment of the Republican Party and supporting Fremont for the 
 presidency. Blair sent to Cameron Jackson's letter of April 9, 
 1845, and explained that the exasperation against Cameron 
 evinced in it grew from Jackson's supposition that Cameron 
 was the author of the plot to supplant the press which he had 
 established in Washington in 1830. This inference, Blair said, 
 was founded on Cameron's letter to Major Donelson offering 
 him the editorship. He investigated the matter and found at once 
 that the design had not originated with Cameron, but with Cal- 
 houn, Tyler, Pickens, Buchanan, and Polk. Blair declared that 
 personally he did not blame Cameron for participating in the 
 scheme. He had assailed Cameron in the Globe, not from any 
 personal hostility, but because he and Cameron differed most 
 essentially in regard to the policy of the administration, and be- 
 cause he was a man of consideration and influence in Pennsyl- 
 vania whom Blair thought it important to disarm of political 
 power under the then existing circumstances. Cameron had a 
 
68 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 right in self-defense to get rid of the Globe as an antagonist. 
 Blair perhaps went a bit too far when he added an assurance to 
 Cameron that he had never felt the least animosity towards him 
 for the part he had taken in the matter. 20 
 
 Immediately after his election by the Pennsylvania legislature, 
 Cameron went to Washington. His credentials were laid before 
 the Senate by Vice President Dallas on Saturday, March fif- 
 teenth — the Senate being in special session. On the seventeenth 
 Cameron was presented by his colleague Daniel Sturgeon, took 
 the prescribed oath, and was seated. The special session of the 
 Senate adjourned three days later. 21 During the months that in- 
 tervened before the meeting of Congress in December, he made 
 several trips to Washington, on both public and private business. 
 His letters to Buchanan, Coryell, and others reveal his interest 
 in national questions and his eagerness for the meeting of Con- 
 gress, that he might have opportunity to take a part in the set- 
 tlement of some of the pending national issues. 
 
 A great Fourth of July celebration was arranged at Middle- 
 town, Cameron's home, in which honor was done to its fore- 
 most citizen. General Cameron was "President of the Day." 
 The formal program consisted of parades, band music, speeches 
 of a political and patriotic nature, and was closed by the offer- 
 ing of some two-score toasts. Several of these toasts were to 
 General Simon Cameron. 22 
 
 The twenty-ninth Congress assembled in December, 1845, 
 with the administration party dominant in both branches. In the 
 Senate, Vice President Dallas occupied the chair which Senator 
 W. P. Mangum had filled as president pro tempore during the 
 administration of President Tyler. Daniel Webster and John 
 C. Calhoun were soon returned to the Senate after having held 
 posts in Tyler's cabinet. Webster, Thomas Corwin of Ohio, 
 and Reverdy Johnson of Maryland lent strength to the Whigs 
 in the Senate. The Democrats were reenforced by Calhoun, 
 Lewis Cass of Michigan, John A. Dix of New York, and Simon 
 Cameron of Pennsylvania. Cameron's colleague, the senior sena- 
 tor from Pennsylvania, was Daniel Sturgeon, who had been 
 elected for a second term. The environment into which Cam- 
 eron was thrust was none too friendly. He had attained office 
 by uniting the forces opposed to the regular candidate of the 
 
UNITED STATES SENATOR 69 
 
 Democratic Party and now neither Whigs nor Democrats were 
 quite willing to accept him in full fellowship, though he felt his 
 personal attachments to be Democratic. McClure declares that 
 Senator Cameron proved to be "a most valuable friend and a 
 most dangerous enemy." At an early period in his service and 
 throughout his four-year term he was recognized as an impor- 
 tant figure both in politics and in legislation. 23 He was undoubt- 
 edly one of the shrewdest political managers of his day. 
 
 On the day of his election Cameron wrote to Buchanan re- 
 questing him to assure the President that no man in the Senate 
 would support his administration with more good will than 
 would he. 24 This was an honest expression of intention on Cam- 
 eron's part, and yet as the months and years passed he frequent- 
 ly found that his principles and views were in conflict with those 
 of the President. On various occasions he was lined up with 
 those in opposition to the administration. His greatest and most 
 fundamental difference with the President concerned their re- 
 spective views on the tariff question, but even here Cameron 
 hoped that trouble might not be encountered. The presidential 
 message was delivered to Congress on the second day of the 
 session. 25 That evening a number of members of Congress called 
 at the White House and expressed their approbation of the 
 message in what President Polk described as ''strong and de- 
 cided terms." This may be modified a bit in the case of Senator 
 Cameron, whom Polk recorded as having pleasantly said: "We 
 Pennsylvanians may scratch a little about the tariff but we will 
 not quarrel about it." He then added that they "were well 
 pleased with the rest of the message." 26 Despite this friendly re- 
 mark Cameron was one of the most aggressive in combating the 
 Tariff of 1846. The message was highly acceptable to the 
 Southern Democrats. 
 
 The Democratic Party Platform in 1844 had declared in 
 rather vague and general terms against fostering "one branch 
 of industry to the detriment of another." In the popular view 
 of that day this took on something of the aspect of a struggle 
 between the agricultural and the manufacturing interests. In his 
 inaugural address Polk laid some stress on this feature and de- 
 clared against a tariff for protection. 27 He reiterated his views 
 in his first annual message to Congress, 28 defining the revenue 
 
70 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 standard as that which would forbid the increase of duties to a 
 point where the receipts from tariff would begin to diminish, 
 condemning the 1 842 tariff as not agreeing with such a standard, 
 and recommending a revision which would substitute ad valorem 
 for specific duties. Robert J. Walker was secretary of the treas- 
 ury. 29 In his report to Congress, on the day following the de- 
 livery of the President's message, Secretary Walker ably re- 
 viewed the whole subject of tariff and made recommendations 
 in line with those of the President. 30 He arraigned the manufac- 
 turers as enjoying unfair advantages under the 1842 tariff, ad- 
 vantages held at the expense of almost every other class. Bu- 
 chanan had voted for the Tariff of 1 842 and had effectively used 
 the Kane letter to Polk's advantage in the Pennsylvania elec- 
 tions. Whatever may have been the sincerity of his views on 
 protection the close agreement of President Polk and Secretary 
 Walker on the tariff issue was effective in silencing him. 31 
 
 Action on the tariff bill was somewhat delayed by pressure 
 of several other questions, especially those concerning the 
 United States' relations with Mexico growing out of the annex- 
 ation of Texas, and with Great Britain concerning the notice 
 of abrogation of the Oregon convention. In time a bill, later 
 to be known as the Walker Tariff, was framed in accordance 
 with Secretary Walker's report. On April fourteenth this meas- 
 ure was reported to the House by Chairman James J. McKay 
 of the Committee of Ways and Means. 32 It was debated earn- 
 estly in the Committee of the Whole during the last two weeks 
 of June. Representative Moses McClean of Pennsylvania offered 
 and had read into the records, resolutions of the senate and 
 house of representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
 requesting her Senators and Representatives in Congress to op- 
 pose all attempts to alter or modify the tariff act of 1842. These 
 resolutions declared that the tariff of 1842 produced "no more 
 than sufficient revenue to defray the necessary expenses of the 
 General Government" and afforded "only an adequate inci- 
 dental protection to American industry and American manu- 
 facturers against foreign competition," and expressed the be- 
 lief that "the people of Pennsylvania were opposed to any al- 
 teration in the existing tariff until further experience has shown 
 
UNITED STATES SENATOR 71 
 
 that a modification is required to secure a continuance of such 
 protection.' 33 
 
 The bill came to a vote in the House on July third and was 
 carried one hundred fourteen to ninety-five. 34 The entire Penn- 
 sylvania delegation, with one notable exception, both Demo- 
 crats and Whigs, voted in accord with the resolutions of the 
 Pennsylvania legislature. Moses McClean, Richard Brodhead, 
 James Thompson, John Blanchard, and Henry D. Foster active- 
 ly opposed the bill, and with most of their Pennsylvania col- 
 leagues voted against every move to change the pre-existing 
 tariff legislation. 
 
 David Wilmot, a Democrat, was the one member of the Penn- 
 sylvania delegation who voted for the bill. During the ballot- 
 ing on the various sections of the bill and the many proposed 
 amendments, Wilmot introduced a number of amendments. His 
 motions, all of which were lost, were for increasing the pro- 
 tection on raw hides, skins, steel, and iron above that provided 
 in the bill. He believed the Tariff of 1842 to be unjust, oppres- 
 sive, burdensome to industry, contributing to a privileged class. 
 He considered it a form of partial legislation hostile to the spirit 
 of American institutions, and fatally subversive of the rights and 
 liberties of the people. He predicted that the restrictive policy 
 would eventually paralyze the great agricultural interests which 
 were as worthy a branch of American industry as the manu- 
 facturing interests. He denied that he was a free-trader, as 
 charged by fellow Pennsylvanians who opposed modification of 
 the Tariff of 1842, and claimed to be a protectionist within the 
 revenue standard. 35 In other words, some of his views were in 
 close harmony with those of the administration. Wilmot had 
 been pledged by his constituents, an agricultural people, to a 
 modification of the Tariff of 1842, yet he wanted to retain a 
 measure of protection for Pennsylvania's industrial interests. He 
 felt that the new bill of 1846 provided too great reduction on 
 many items. He also urged the laying of specific instead of ad 
 valorem duties. His vote for the bill was a redemption of his 
 pledge to his constituents and was given after he had exhausted 
 every effort to secure the interests of his state. 36 
 
 The tariff bill was received in the Senate from the House on 
 Monday, July sixth, and was made the special order of business 
 
72 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 of the Committee of the Whole for the next iMonday. Chair- 
 man Dixon H. Lewis of the finance committee on the latter 
 date presented and ably reviewed the bill before the Committee 
 of the Whole. 87 During the next two weeks the bill was earn- 
 estly debated, and its fate remained exceedingly doubtful until 
 the final vote. Senator Cameron presented innumerable peti- 
 tions and memorials particularly from groups of laborers em- 
 ployed in the coal and iron industries of Pennsylvania, against 
 the passage of the new tariff bill. He interjected brief remarks 
 frequently during this two-week period. Always he championed 
 protection as being for the best interests of the industries and 
 the citizens of his state. Pennsylvania's interests were paramount 
 with him. He deeply resented the statement of Senator Am- 
 brose H. Sevier of Arkansas, who compared the petitioners of 
 Pennsylvania with the slave labor of the South in his remark 
 that laborers were the same everywhere. Cameron declared that: 
 
 The laborers of Pennsylvania were white men; they were freemen; they 
 were intelligent men; and they asked no favors from Government but 
 to be let alone in the enjoyment of their labor. . . . He was acting with 
 the Democracy of his own state; and he desired to learn no new 
 democracy from gentlemen who compared his laboring fellow-citizens 
 with the negro laborers of the South. 38 
 
 In the course of the debate on the tariff bill Senator Cam- 
 eron made one set speech, which has been characterized as the 
 most important speech in his rather long career in the United 
 States Senate. This speech of July twenty-second was very 
 decided in its tone against the new bill. Cameron criticized the 
 methods used by the Administration to enact the new tariff 
 measure, particularly the undue haste of the Administration to 
 rush the bill through the Senate after it had been incubated 
 in the office of the secretary of the treasury and before the 
 House of Representatives for more than six months. He re- 
 viewed the recent history of Pennsylvania in the fields of agri- 
 culture, coal, iron, manufacturing, and wages. He attributed the 
 growth and prosperity of the state in these fields to the whole- 
 some effects of the Tariff of 1842. He contended that the effects 
 of the new bill on both the revenue and on the various indus- 
 tries of the country would be most disastrous. He concluded 
 
UNITED STATES SENATOR 73 
 
 by quoting from a speech of Honorable George M. Dallas, 
 made in 1832 while he was a Senator, in favor of the protective 
 system and stated his belief, that, in the event of the question 
 depending for its issue on the casting vote of the Vice President, 
 that officer would not prove recreant to the interests of his own 
 state. 89 
 
 On July twenty-seventh, the protectionists won a brief vic- 
 tory by a vote of twenty-eight to twenty-seven to recommit 
 the bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to mod- 
 ify the schedules, Cameron voting in the affirmative. The next 
 day Senator Lewis reported back the bill and asked that the 
 committee be discharged from further consideration of the in- 
 structions of the previous day. This excited prolonged debate 
 and was finally carried twenty-eight to twenty-seven, and the 
 committee was discharged, Cameron having opposed the action. 
 Senator Daniel Webster offered an amendment to strike out 
 the whole of the ninth section of the bill, which he considered 
 "would be of no possible use, on the contrary, would be pro- 
 ductive of a great deal of fraud upon the treasury." The amend- 
 ment was carried by a margin of two votes. An effort to com- 
 mit the bill to a select committee with instructions quite similar 
 to those of the previous day failed. Cameron made two further 
 attempts to amend the bill in order to obtain a greater degree 
 of protection than was provided. Both of his amendments were 
 rejected. 40 
 
 At this point calls came for the amendment to be engrossed 
 and for the bill to be brought to a third reading. Senator Spencer 
 Jarnagin of Tennessee had become convinced earlier that the 
 bill could not be amended and therefore had voted for the dis- 
 charge of the committee, but he now refrained from voting, 
 thus causing a tie and forcing the decision upon Vice President 
 Dallas. Jarnagin, a Whig, was favorable to protection. The 
 Democrats had won a majority in both houses in the Tennessee 
 legislature and were opposed equally to the principle of pro- 
 tection and to the Tariff of 1842. This legislature passed a res- 
 olution in harmony with the Administration's tariff policy for 
 the instruction of the state's Senators and Representatives in 
 Washington. Senator Jarnagin personally opposed the bill be- 
 fore the Senate, discussing at length his objections to it, urging 
 
74 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 strenuously the duty of changing many of its provisions and 
 favoring greater protection. He declared that while he felt 
 bound in obedience to his legislature to uphold the bill in the 
 end, he considered himself at full liberty to use his utmost ex- 
 ertions to get the bill amended so as to render it as little in- 
 jurious as possible to the business interests of the country. 41 
 
 Dallas was placed in a difficult position. His past record was 
 that of a protectionist and it was on this record that Pennsyl- 
 vania had supported him for the vice presidency. As the Senate 
 was evenly divided on this important question, Dallas took the 
 opportunity to state the principal reasons for the vote he was 
 about to cast. He analyzed the vote in the Senate which by no 
 means showed a sectional cleavage. He believed that there was 
 ample proof that a majority of the people and of the states 
 desired to change the system heretofore pursued in assessing the 
 duties on foreign imports. This majority, he said, had manifested 
 itself in various ways, and its desire was attested by the approval 
 of the bill in the House of Representatives. There were pro- 
 visions in the bill of which he did not personally approve, 
 though he believed that the bill was more equal, more tem- 
 perate, and more just than the act of 1842. The fact that its 
 provisions dealt with some of the pursuits and resources of his 
 native state less kindly than she might have expected did not 
 relieve him of his duty, but only made his performance of it 
 reluctant and painful. He cast his vote in the affirmative and the 
 bill was ordered to a third reading. 42 This vote meant that Dallas 
 abided by the party platform and tariff principles of the Ad- 
 ministration in the face of the almost unanimous opposition of his 
 native state. For this act he was castigated by the Democratic 
 press of Philadelphia and Harrisburg. 43 
 
 One more effort was made to delay action on the bill in a 
 motion for postponement, which was lost by a margin of one 
 vote. The bill was then read a third time by its title and after 
 brief discussion it was brought to a vote. The fate of the bill 
 now largely hung upon the action of Senator Jarnagin. Would 
 he vote according to his convictions, or as instructed by his 
 state legislature, or would he refrain from voting? Until the 
 roll was called, some Senators expected that Dallas would be 
 called upon to cast the deciding vote. Jarnagin voted for the 
 
UNITED STATES SENATOR 75 
 
 bill, as instructed, and it carried twenty-eight to twenty-seven. 
 Thus Dallas was relieved of casting the deciding vote on a tariff 
 bill which was execrated in Pennsylvania and which was hon- 
 estly believed, by a large portion of the leaders, to be inimical 
 to the highest degree to the interests of the American manu- 
 facturer and the American mechanic. 44 
 
 On July twenty-ninth the House received and considered the 
 bill from the Senate with the amendment. Several efforts were 
 made by gentlemen from Massachusetts, New York, and Penn- 
 sylvania to obstruct action on the measure, but to no avail. By 
 a vote of one hundred fifteen to ninety-two the House con- 
 curred with the Senate as to the amendment, and the bill needed 
 only the signature of the President to become a law. 45 The bill 
 was presented to President Polk the following day. He approved 
 and immediately signed it. 46 This tariff act of 1846, which is 
 usually referred to as the Walker Tariff, was one distinctly 
 based upon the ad valorem principle. The commodities with 
 which the act dealt were divided into nine schedules, distin- 
 guished by the letters A to I inclusive. Rates from one hundred 
 per cent on articles in Schedule A decreased through the al- 
 phabetical schedules to Schedule I which specified the list of 
 articles to come in free of duty. 47 
 
 Cameron did not accept the Walker Tariff schedules as hav- 
 ing firmly fixed the rates for any long period. He continued to 
 preach the protective doctrine. Before this tariff was six months 
 old he introduced the following resolution: 
 
 that the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to report to the Senate 
 on what articles embraced in the tariff act of 1846 the duties can be 
 increased beyond the existing rates so as to augment the revenue; and 
 to what extent the said duties can be increased, and what additional 
 revenues would accrue therefrom. 
 
 The ostensible purpose of the resolution was to furnish the gov- 
 ernment with more money for carrying on the War with Mexi- 
 co. However, in his presentation of the resolution, he took the 
 opportunity to analyze the shortcomings of the tariff and to 
 show that it was injurious to the revenue while at the same time 
 it destroyed the domestic manufacturer. For his illustrations he 
 chose iron, sugar, and other items of particular interest to the 
 
76 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 people of Pennsylvania. 48 The resolution, with amendments, 
 was adopted. Fourteen and a half months later, in March, 1848, 
 he called the attention of the Senate to the need of protection 
 for coal and iron; and in February, 1849, a month before his 
 term would expire, Cameron presented at one time one hundred 
 thirty-two petitions of the citizens of Pennsylvania asking such 
 an increase of the tariff as would afford protection to the do- 
 mestic industries of the country. 49 
 
 While the Walker Tariff by no means provided free trade, it 
 was certainly a step in that direction. The drift towards free 
 trade continued until checked by the Civil War. In the mean- 
 time, Congress saw fit, in 1857, to make a further reduction in 
 tariff rates, while Cameron was still supporting protection. The 
 period from 1846 to 1857 was one of general prosperity for the 
 country. The evident causes of that prosperity were numerous, 
 and, since there is no way of eliminating the other factors and 
 determining how much should be ascribed to tariff alone, it 
 can be said of the low tariff only that it was undoubtedly one 
 of the contributing factors. 50 
 
 The firm and consistent stand of Senator Cameron in 1846 
 for the interests of his native state is characteristic of his whole 
 political career. That his efforts did not go unnoticed or unap- 
 preciated by protectionist elements outside Pennsylvania was 
 evidenced a year later at Saratoga Springs. An article from 
 there bearing the date line of August 11, 1847, describes an in- 
 teresting incident. A respectable deputation of manufacturers 
 from different states who were visiting the Springs waited upon 
 Senator Cameron, also a visitor there, and expressed their appre- 
 ciation for his efficient and valuable services during the last 
 session of Congress in behalf of the cause of domestic industry. 
 The writer went on to bear personal testimony to the zeal and 
 labor which General Cameron bestowed upon the tariff ques- 
 tion during the discussion and the progress of the bill in the 
 Senate. He had consulted him frequently at the time and found 
 him not only always well-informed, but also ready and anxious 
 to co-operate in any just policy that would save the great in- 
 terests which it was believed would be doomed by the new bill. 
 Though he failed in the cause for which he was fighting he was 
 none the less "entitled to the gratitude of those who prefer 
 
UNITED STATES SENATOR 77 
 
 protecting American labor to that of the convicts and paupers 
 of European workships." 51 The editor of the Lewisburg Chroni- 
 cle, who quoted the above from the Philadelphia newspaper, 
 added his own tribute: 
 
 to the remarkable tact, talent, and efficiency displayed by General 
 Cameron during the last session of Congress, and his unwavering fi- 
 delity to the interests of the working classes. Indomitable energy and 
 perseverance are distinguishing traits of his character. 3 - 
 
 While the House of Representatives was considering new 
 tariff legislation both the House and the Senate were called up- 
 on to consider a matter of foreign relations growing out of the 
 election of Polk, the Oregon problem. This question was one of 
 national ownership of the Pacific Northwest. By successive 
 treaties the territory was defined to mean the area west of the 
 Rocky Mountains, north of the forty-second parallel, and south 
 of fifty-four degrees and forty minutes. Four nations had held 
 conflicting claims to this area. Spain by the Treaty of 18 19 re- 
 linquished to the United States all claims north of the forty- 
 second parallel. Russia, whose claims were the weakest, with- 
 drew all claims south of fifty-four forty by separate treaties 
 with the United States and Great Britain in 1824 and 1825, re- 
 spectively. By the Convention of 18 18, Great Britain and the 
 United States had drawn the boundary-line between Canada 
 and the United States on the forty-ninth parallel west to the 
 Rocky Mountains and had provided for joint occupation of the 
 Oregon Country by the subjects and citizens of both powers. 
 This joint-occupation treaty was renewed in 1827 with the pro- 
 vision that either party might terminate the agreement by giving 
 one year's notice to the other party. 
 
 During the succeeding years, population had poured into the 
 territory, and unsuccessful efforts had been made by the United 
 States to reach an agreement with the British for division of the 
 territory on the proposed line of the forty-ninth parallel. 53 The 
 Democratic Party's slogan of "fifty-four forty or fight" may 
 have been a bit rash, but it was in line with growing desire in 
 the United States for a settlement of this issue. President Polk 
 in his annual message reviewed the problem and the unsuc- 
 cessful efforts to reach a boundary settlement with the British. 
 
78 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 He declared that the title of the United States to Oregon was 
 the strongest now in existence and that the British proposition 
 of compromise "can never, for a moment be entertained, by 
 the United States, without an abandonment of their just and 
 clear territorial rights, their own self-respect, and the national 
 honor." 54 He suggested that, under the provisions of the Con- 
 vention of 1827, Great Britain be given notice for termination 
 of the agreement for joint occupation. 
 
 The question was discussed by both Houses of Congress and 
 finally, on April twenty-third, both Houses accepted the con- 
 ference committee's report on a joint resolution authorizing the 
 President to give to the government of Great Britain the re- 
 quired notice. 55 Senator Cameron, in voting for the joint reso- 
 lution, declared that he was in favor of a plain notice to the 
 British Government. He considered that the interests of the 
 country could be best served if the action of Congress on this 
 matter indicated a high degree of unanimity. He hoped for 
 speedy settlement. The President had asked for authority to 
 give the required notice; having full confidence in his integrity, 
 capacity, and patriotism, Cameron was willing to trust the 
 whole question to his hands. He believed fully in his govern- 
 ment's right to the whole area in dispute, that title to the terri- 
 tory was "ours" to fifty-four forty; but he did not think this 
 the proper time or place to argue the question. That could be 
 better done by the Executive in arranging a treaty or insisting 
 upon our rights. When a treaty should be negotiated by the 
 representatives of the two countries the Senate would then have 
 opportunity, if it were deemed wise, to revise their acts. Cam- 
 eron thought this course would be more respectful to the Presi- 
 dent and in the end better for the country. 56 
 
 Acting under the authority given him by this joint resolu- 
 tion of Congress the President, a few days later, transmitted the 
 required year's notice for termination of the treaty, expressing 
 the hope that this would hasten a friendly settlement. Early in 
 June, the British government suggested a compromise boundary 
 settlement in line with that sought at earlier periods by the 
 United States, and proposed a convention for the adjustment of 
 their differences with the United States on the Oregon ques- 
 tion. This proposal was transmitted to the Senate on June tenth. 
 
UNITED STATES SENATOR 79 
 
 On the twelfth the Senate voted thirty-eight to twelve to ad- 
 vise the President to accept the proposal of the British Govern- 
 ment for a convention to settle the boundaries between the 
 United States and Great Britain west of the Rocky Mountains. 
 An agreement was concluded on the fifteenth and submitted to 
 the Senate. In the ensuing debate, an effort to amend the treaty 
 to give the whole of the territory to the United States failed by 
 a vote of five yeas to forty-two nays. Shortly thereafter, on 
 June eighteenth, the Senate voted forty-one to fourteen to give 
 its advice and consent to the ratification of the treaty. On all 
 three votes, Senator Cameron and his colleague from Pennsyl- 
 vania, Senator Sturgeon, expressed their opposition to relin- 
 quishing any of the Oregon country to the British. 57 
 
 Two years later a bill was before Congress providing for 
 the establishment of territorial government in Oregon. In both 
 the House of Representatives and the Senate, the bill was much 
 delayed by heated arguments on the question of permitting or 
 prohibiting slavery in the territory. It passed the House on Aug- 
 ust second with a slavery-restriction clause similar to that of the 
 Ordinance of 1787 for the government of the Northwest Terri- 
 tory. The Senate added several amendments to the bill, includ- 
 ing one to strike out the slavery-restriction clause. The House 
 refused to concur in these amendments and it appeared that a 
 deadlock had been reached. 58 Finally, on August twelfth, or 
 rather on Sunday morning of August thirteenth, the day before 
 the close of the session, the Senate receded from its amendments 
 one by one and the bill was passed in the form in which it came 
 from the House of Representatives. Cameron voted for the Ore- 
 gon bill as sent to the House with Senate amendments; and, al- 
 though he had supported some of the amendments, when it ap- 
 peared that the deadlock might prevent the passage of the bill 
 during the current session, he voted in the affirmative on all di- 
 vision and recorded votes on receding from the Senate amend- 
 ments. 59 
 
 The method used by Cameron to gain election to the United 
 States Senate could not be calculated to have gained for him 
 the goodwill of the Administration, especially since it had meant 
 the defeat of the candidate of the Democratic Party caucus of 
 Pennsylvania. Although on many occasions he had professed his 
 
8o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 support of President Polk and his administration, he felt very 
 keenly that the President had not accepted him and paid to him 
 due respect in the matter of patronage in Pennsylvania. To 
 Cameron it seemed that the President's nomination of Judge 
 George W. Woodward to the Supreme Court was a deliberate 
 effort to place himself in an embarrassing position. 
 
 Cameron had defeated Woodward for the seat in the Senate. 
 When President Polk sent his nomination to the Senate, it ap- 
 peared to Cameron to be an attempt to placate the friends and 
 supporters of Woodward. The Senate had a narrow Democratic 
 majority and it was not doubted that the nomination would be 
 confirmed. It was only natural under the circumstances that 
 Cameron should exert himself to have the nomination rejected. 
 The President suspected that Buchanan had given countenance 
 to Cameron's opposition. 60 That the President's suspicion was 
 correct seems to be confirmed by a letter of Cameron to Bu- 
 chanan written on December twenty-fifth, two days after the 
 nomination was sent to the Senate. Cameron said that he was 
 greatly disappointed at the nomination of Judge Woodward 
 after understanding the President to say he did not intend to 
 make it. He added: "This will hurry my return to Washington 
 and I will try to see you on Sunday. I hope you will permit me 
 to see you on the afternoon of that day." 61 The inevitable in- 
 ference is that Cameron was hurrying back to Washington to 
 work against this nomination in the Senate, that in so doing he 
 was carrying out Buchanan's wish, and that he desired to counsel 
 with him as to methods. Cameron enclosed, with the above 
 note, letters which he had received protesting in strong terms 
 against the proposed appointment of Woodward and urged that 
 strenuous action be taken to prevent ratification. Buchanan had 
 expressed to the President a desire to have the place on the 
 bench for himself. Polk had been quite reluctant to have him 
 leave the Cabinet and after some days of reflection Buchanan 
 had notified the President of change of mind. In doing so he 
 had urged the appointment of John M. Read of Philadelphia to 
 the place. 62 Buchanan was greatly disappointed and dissatisfied 
 at the appointment of Woodward. 
 
 On January twenty-second the Senate rejected the nomina- 
 tion of Judge Woodward to the Supreme Court. This was ac- 
 
UNITED STATES SENATOR 81 
 
 complished by the votes of six Democratic Senators acting with 
 the Whig members. Polk believed Cameron was the active 
 member in the Senate in procuring this rejection, and further- 
 more he was indignant because certain that Buchanan had con- 
 spired to defeat the nomination in order that he might secure 
 the office for himself. 63 The office was permitted to remain 
 vacant for some months. During the summer it was offered to 
 Buchanan, who again decided to remain in the Cabinet. Polk, 
 on August third, nominated Judge Robert C. Grier of Pitts- 
 burgh, an appointment which was entirely satisfactory to Bu- 
 chanan, and which was confirmed by the Senate two days 
 later. 64 This appointment was personally acceptable to Cameron. 
 Another case in which Cameron drew swords with the Presi- 
 dent concerned the nomination of Henry Horn as collector of 
 the port of Philadelphia. Buchanan objected to the appointment 
 of Horn, but later reluctantly withdrew his opposition and Polk 
 sent the nomination to the Senate. Cameron apparently had not 
 been consulted. He made his opposition manifest by a resolution 
 in the executive session of the Senate calling on the President 
 for the recommendations upon which Horn had been appointed 
 collector of Philadelphia. He also called for the protest made to 
 the Senate by certain members of the Philadelphia delegation 
 in Congress against this nomination. This was an unusual pro- 
 cedure and rather disturbing for the President and for the Ad- 
 ministration leaders in the Senate. On February eleventh, while 
 calling on the President, Cameron expressed his opposition to 
 the appointment of Horn; at the same time, admitting that he 
 was honest and was qualified for the office. The President was 
 convinced that Senator Cameron's real objection to the appoint- 
 ment was that Horn did not belong to his particular clique in 
 Pennsylvania. He then explained to Cameron the circumstances 
 under which the appointment had been made. Cameron spoke 
 despairingly of all the other appointments at Philadelphia ex- 
 cept one. He intimated that Horn had it in his power to have 
 the opposition to his confirmation by the Senate withdrawn. He 
 suggested that some friend might write to Horn and ask him to 
 call on him [Cameron]. Polk confided to his Diary that he cer- 
 tainly would not write to Horn but would leave Cameron to 
 take his own course. 65 
 
82 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 On May twenty-fifth Cameron took advantage of the ab- 
 sence of several Democratic Senators to call up the nomination 
 of Horn. His nomination was rejected by the solid Whig vote 
 with additional opposition votes of Senators Calhoun, Cameron, 
 and James D. Westcott of Florida. President Polk was irritated 
 by this action of the Senate. He placed the full blame upon 
 Cameron, whom he referred to as "a managing, tricky man in 
 whom no reliance is to be placed." 66 Because of the circum- 
 stances of the rejection President Polk determined to renomi- 
 nate Horn for the same post. Cameron called upon the President 
 and failed in his efforts to dissuade him from the course. 67 The 
 President later asked Secretary Walker to write to Horn in- 
 viting him to come to Washington and through Secretary Bu- 
 chanan arrangements were made for him to have a conference 
 with Senator Cameron. 68 Horn and Cameron apparently were 
 unable to reach an agreement, for on June twenty-fourth the 
 Senate for the second time refused to confirm the nomination of 
 Horn. Again this rejection was accomplished by Calhoun, Cam- 
 eron, and Westcott voting with the Whigs. 69 
 
 It must be remembered that the evidence presented by Presi- 
 dent Polk was biased because Cameron appeared to him to be 
 obstructing the will of the Administration, though he stead- 
 fastly maintained that he was a Democrat. It should be recalled 
 also that Cameron's opposition to the Administration's tariff 
 policy was based upon defense of interests which he considered 
 vital to his native state. His opposition to some of the President's 
 Pennsylvania appointments was on a somewhat different basis. 
 
 Cameron had labored long years in the interest of the Demo- 
 cratic Party, and now occupied one of the highest offices to 
 which he could be elevated by his state. This office carried with 
 it, especially if he were of the party in control of the Adminis- 
 tration, certain courtesies and respects with reference to pa- 
 tronage. It was, therefore, a matter of honor to him that the 
 President should defer somewhat to his wishes and party tra- 
 dition in Pennsylvania appointments. When the President chose 
 to ignore him, Cameron retaliated by using the only method 
 available to show the President that he must be given consid- 
 eration — that of organizing opposition to block Pennsylvania 
 appointments which he did not favor. Cameron was in the early 
 
UNITED STATES SENATOR 83 
 
 stages of building a political following of his own. He could not 
 permit such a slight to go unnoticed. Before the end of Camer- 
 on's first Congress, the President had many opportunities to 
 observe that he was a force that must be reckoned with. Presi- 
 dent Polk had followed another party tradition — he had tried 
 to ignore a Senator irregularly elected against a regular candi- 
 date. 
 
 Cameron's letters of 1846 and 1847 indicate his disappoint- 
 ment in Polk's leadership of the Democratic Party. They also 
 show, along with his actions in the Senate, some weakening of 
 his own attachments to the party though frequently he pro- 
 fessed strict allegiance. He was so thoroughly convinced of the 
 ineffectiveness of Polk's leadership to bring about political unity 
 of the national Democracy that, in January, 1847, he declared 
 to a friend concerning the presidential election of the next year 
 that "the democratic party cannot succeed unless we have a 
 new man to carry the flag." 70 The reversals suffered by the Ad- 
 ministration in the 1 846 congressional elections had strengthened 
 Cameron's convictions. 
 
 The unsatisfactory relations between the United States and 
 Mexico were hastened to a serious conclusion by the sending of 
 American armed forces into the disputed territory immediately 
 north of the Rio Grande. The district of Texas when a part of 
 the Mexican state of Texas-Coahuila had not extended south of 
 the Neuces River, but the Texans after their revolution and 
 independence had asserted their boundary to be the Rio 
 Grande. 71 When Texas was annexed to the United States it was 
 naturally assumed that Texas' claims to the disputed area were 
 valid and Polk endeavored to adjust the boundary by peaceful 
 negotiations. When the Mexican Government refused to re- 
 ceive the United States minister-plenipotentiary, John Slidell, 
 and evaded peace discussions, President Polk ordered General 
 Zachary Taylor to advance to the Rio Grande. 
 
 This movement of American troops occurred in March, 1846. 
 For some weeks nothing happened. Polk appeared to be anxious 
 for some overt act on the part of the Mexican Government that 
 would give him opportunity to ask for a declaration of war on 
 the basis of an attack on the United States. On Saturday, May 
 ninth, it was decided by the cabinet, Secretary of the Navy 
 
84 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 George Bancroft dissenting, that the President should recom- 
 mend to Congress a declaration of war against Mexico to col- 
 lect payment for the adjudicated claims on which Mexico had 
 stopped paying. That evening despatches arrived from General 
 Taylor announcing the attack by Mexicans on United States 
 forces north of the Rio Grande. The Cabinet was hastily re- 
 assembled and it was unanimously agreed that war existed by an 
 act of Mexico and that a message should be sent to Congress on 
 Monday laying before them all the information concerning 
 relations with Mexico and recommending vigorous and prompt 
 measures to enable the Executive to prosecute the war. 72 
 
 The message was prepared on Sunday and sent to Congress 
 the next day. 73 Losing no time the House of Representatives on 
 the same day, by a vote of one hundred seventy-four to four- 
 teen, passed a bill declaring that "by the act of the Republic of 
 Mexico, a state of war exists between that Government and the 
 United States," and providing for the prosecution of the war. 
 On Tuesday the Senate received and passed the declaration by 
 an overwhelming vote, forty to two. On Wednesday it re- 
 ceived the President's signature. 74 During the period when the 
 measure was before the Senate, Cameron used his influence to 
 hasten enactment. 7 "' Throughout the course of the war he and 
 the people of Pennsylvania, in general, approved the war meas- 
 ures pursued by the Administration. 76 
 
 A few months after the war began, and before Congress ad- 
 journed in the summer of 1846, President Polk requested an 
 appropriation with which to negotiate peace, it being supposed 
 that the United States would acquire some territory from Mexi- 
 co. A bill to provide funds as requested was moved in the House 
 of Representatives on the eighth of August. At this juncture 
 David Wilmot, a Democrat from Northeastern Pennsylvania, 
 heretofore identified with the politics of the Administration, 
 proposed an amendment. Conditional to the acquisition of any 
 territory which the United States might gain from the Republic 
 of Mexico by virtue of any treaty which might be negotiated 
 between them and to the use by the Executive of the funds 
 granted under this bill, he proposed that neither slavery nor in- 
 voluntary servitude should ever exist in any part of the said 
 
UNITED STATES SENATOR 85 
 
 territory. 77 This amendment became famous as the Wilmot 
 Proviso. 
 
 A fruitless effort was made to amend the Wilmot Proviso in 
 such a way as to limit its application to the region north of 
 thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes and thus to extend the 
 principle of the Missouri Compromise. The House passed the 
 appropriation bill on August eighth carrying the Proviso by a 
 vote of eighty-seven to sixty- four. 78 The next day being Sun- 
 day, the bill was not brought in the Senate until the tenth of 
 August. When the bill was taken up Senator Dixon H. Lewis 
 of Alabama moved to strike out the House amendment. Senator 
 John Davis of Massachusetts objected to the removal of this 
 amendment, and, gaining the floor, occupied it until twelve 
 o'clock, the hour at which the two Houses by their joint resolu- 
 tion had previously agreed to adjourn. 79 The measure was thus 
 killed. 
 
 In the next session of Congress a bill was introduced in the 
 House of Representatives to appropriate three million dollars 
 for the purpose of peace negotiations. The Wilmot Proviso 
 was added and the amended bill carried on February 15, 1847, 
 by a vote of one hundred fifteen to one hundred five. 80 Within 
 the next two weeks there was much sharp debate in the Senate 
 on the slavery question, growing out of the Proviso added to 
 the House bill. Finally, on March first, or rather on the early 
 morning of the second, the Senate refused to accept the amend- 
 ed bill of the House of Representatives, but did pass one of its 
 own based on the House bill which provided for appropriat- 
 ing the same sum. 81 Then on the last day of the session, March 
 third, the House, after a vain effort to add the Wilmot Proviso 
 to the Senate bill, accepted the Senate measure. 82 Three million 
 dollars therefore became available to the President without the 
 Wilmot restrictions. 
 
 Cameron voted for the Wilmot Proviso and against the bill 
 after the amendment had been voted down. This vote did not 
 represent any intense personal conviction on his part; he merely 
 carried out the instructions of the Pennsylvania legislature. He 
 said that for the first time he was called upon to give a vote 
 not the result of his own reflection. He digressed briefly to give 
 
86 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 his opinion upon the responsibility of obeying instructions from 
 the state legislatures. 
 
 He was free to say that he would not obey instructions not in ac- 
 cordance with the opinions and wishes of the people who elected the 
 legislature giving them; or if they should instruct him to do an act 
 which subsequent information should convince him they had adopted 
 upon wrong information, he would not hesitate to take the responsi- 
 bility of disobeying them, and would rely with confidence on the purity 
 of his intentions and the result of his vote as his justification with the 
 people, who were the common masters of all representatives. But upon 
 a question on which public opinion was clear, he should never hesitate, 
 and would cheerfully obey — for, in his opinion, no principle was more 
 clear than that the agent was bound to carry out in good faith the 
 wishes of his principal. So clear was he on the subject, that he would 
 never hesitate to give up his own opinion, and adopt that which he 
 knew to be the decided opinion of his State. 83 
 
 There could be little room for doubt concerning the stand 
 of Pennsylvania on this question. A majority of the people were 
 at least moderately opposed to the acquisition of any more slave 
 territory. The legislature requested the Pennsylvania Senators 
 and Representatives in Congress to vote against any measure by 
 which territory might be acquired unless it carried a provision 
 prohibiting slavery. So united was the legislature that out of a 
 total of one hundred thirty-three members, only three votes 
 were recorded against the resolution. Under such circumstances 
 Cameron's course was clear. To explain the position of the 
 people of Pennsylvania further he pointed out that the people 
 of his state would "never interfere with the constitutional rights 
 of their southern brethren," that they "would be among the 
 first to pour out their blood and treasure to sustain the Union, 
 or to protect from wrong the people of the southern states." 
 The people of Pennsylvania did not desire to interfere with the 
 local and peculiar institutions of the South and many of them 
 believed that: 
 
 if left to themselves, the entire southern people will in due time, and in 
 their own good way, abolsh the entire institution of slavery; they think, 
 too, that this great community of States may, like members of a part- 
 nership, before the purchase of new territory with the common funds 
 of the firm, decide among themselves what use shall be made of the 
 purchase. 84 
 
UNITED STATES SENATOR 87 
 
 Two weeks after the funds were made available, Polk ap- 
 pointed Nicholas P. Trist with full powers to negotiate a treaty 
 with Mexico. 85 Although his commission was revoked in the 
 fall, Trist stayed on with the United States' forces at the city 
 of Mexico and concluded the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo on 
 February 2, 1848. Despite the conditions of its negotiation Polk 
 submitted the treaty to the Senate with his recommendation that 
 with certain modifications it should be ratified. 86 After ap- 
 proximately two weeks of debate, during which several modi- 
 fications were made, the Senate approved the treaty by a vote 
 of thirty-eight to fourteen. Both of the Senators from Pennsyl- 
 vania voted for ratification. 87 
 
 During the course of the war, Cameron seldom spoke at 
 length in the Senate on any of its issues. He supported the Ad- 
 ministration in making the necessary provisions for the suc- 
 cessful prosecution of the war and was ever alert on measures 
 which would benefit the common soldiers. He was responsible 
 for proposing bills for better equipment, better pay, greater in- 
 ducements for enlistment, and, looking to the time of their hon- 
 orable discharge from the army, for the granting of land boun- 
 ties to them. 88 Attention to such things also might well be cal- 
 culated to aid Cameron in the building of a political following 
 not only in his own state but also in the nation. 
 
 The Harrisburg Argus ', the leading Administration newspaper 
 at the Pennsylvania capital, reported the action of various 
 county groups throughout the state. It noted the action of the 
 Democracy of Berks County in relation to "the patriotic course 
 pursued by General Cameron in the Senate of the United States 
 — especially the noble and gallant bearing that distinguished his 
 conduct toward the volunteer citizen soldiery of the republic." 
 Similarly the Democracy of Dauphin, his home county, assem- 
 bled in full convention and passed strong resolutions in appro- 
 bation of his public acts. It declared that: 
 
 the patriotic and philanthropic conduct of Senator Cameron, in the 
 American Senate, toward the volunteers — in elevating their character 
 and improving their condition, is in perfect harmony with his past his- 
 tory — showing his devotion to their welfare and the public honor is not 
 assumed for the occasion, but sincere . . . 
 
88 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 and added: "The volunteers will never cease to remember the 
 name of Simon Cameron with respect and confidence — to re- 
 ward his services with the lasting gratitude of a soldier's heart." 
 The convention resolved that "his services in the United States 
 Senate in behalf of the citizen soldiers of our common country 
 have given other parts of the Union an evidence of that pa- 
 triotism and goodness of heart which we have long known that 
 he possessed in an eminent degree." 89 The New York Tribune 
 spoke of General Cameron in an article on the United States 
 Senate as one of the new members, who, by his talents and at- 
 tention to the public business, aided in sustaining the high 
 character of that illustrious body. 90 This was high praise com- 
 ing as a voluntary tribute from a political opponent. 
 
 In the spring of 1847 William Brua Cameron, the elder of 
 Simon's sons, desired to obtain an appointment as a Lieutenant 
 of Dragoons, or of the Marines. It being a delicate matter for 
 his father, Brua wrote several letters soliciting Buchanan's aid. 
 He was anxious to be in Mexico before the fighting was over, 
 and ceased asking Buchanan's aid when he heard of several 
 American victories and believed the war about at an end. 91 He 
 did not wish to continue in the army and would have resigned 
 after the war ended. Finally, on April eighth, Buchanan wrote 
 to Cameron about his son's solicitations. Cameron replied that 
 he was mortified by Brua's attempts to get a place in the army. 
 He would have had no objections to his having gone with a 
 volunteer company for a year at the beginning of the war, "or 
 even now if the country needed him"; but he declared he had 
 a horror of men living off the public and "nothing would pain 
 me more than to see my son entering the army for a living or 
 expecting to be supported by the Government in any way." 
 Cameron felt that a commission now would require a period of 
 training before he could be of service and by that time the war 
 would be over and no service rendered for the salary received. 
 There were other considerations also. Cameron wanted Brua to 
 take his place in business. This would be precluded if army life 
 proved particularly attractive. He declared Buchanan would do 
 him a kindness if he would write a few lines of advice to Brua. 92 
 
 The acquisition of extensive territory along the Pacific coast, 
 as a result of the Oregon Treaty and the Mexican Cessions 
 
UNITED STATES SENATOR 89 
 
 under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, opened a new era in 
 the history of the United States and brought to the front the 
 problem of establishing a more rapid means of communication 
 with this area. Much time of the Congress which met in De- 
 cember of 1 848 was consumed in the consideration of this prob- 
 lem. Memorials and petitions from William H. Aspinwall and 
 others were presented in the Senate, looking towards a solution 
 of the question through the building of railroads across the 
 Isthmus of Panama or the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, or the con- 
 struction of a plank road across the former. Other petitions 
 prayed for the construction of a national railroad from the 
 Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. Cameron believed that 
 the public interests imperatively demanded that Congress should 
 do something to facilitate communication between our Atlantic 
 and Pacific coasts. 98 Several bills were presented which would 
 provide for the construction of roads across the Isthmus of 
 Panama and across the western area of the United States to the 
 Pacific. Congress adjourned, however, without passing any. The 
 measures usually provided for government aid in the form of 
 money grants or otherwise to carry out the project. In the de- 
 bates on the question of governmental aid sought by individuals 
 Cameron declared himself as utterly opposed to connecting the 
 public treasury with the interests of individuals. He cited the 
 experience of Pennsylvania in building the Union Canal twenty 
 years earlier. The state became involved first by guaranteeing 
 the interest on a million dollars of stock for constructing the 
 canal and ended by becoming involved in a debt of more than 
 forty millions of dollars. He believed the Federal Government 
 should endeavor to induce competition instead of conferring 
 exclusive privileges and felt that as important as the isthmus 
 railroad project was to the trade of the world, it was not of 
 sufficient magnitude to require the assistance of the govern- 
 ment. 94 
 
 As the time for the close of the thirtieth Congress approached 
 with its pressure of many bills yet to be enacted, night sessions 
 became unavoidable. The nerves and the patience of legislators 
 became worn, and too often gentlemanly demeanor was aban- 
 doned and the legislative chambers were profaned. The last 
 day of the session — the last day of Cameron's first term — was 
 
9o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 one that he probably long remembered. It was Saturday, March 
 third, and the evening session lasted through the night to final 
 adjournment at seven o'clock Sunday morning. "Observer," 
 writing his letter of March fourth for the Public Ledger, de- 
 clared: 
 
 The session last evening was a terrible one — rights and squabbles in both 
 Houses. . . . You can have no idea of the noise and confusion in both 
 Houses, the epithets and blows that were exchanged, and the general 
 uproar that rendered it almost impossible for members to know what 
 they voted upon. 95 
 
 In the Senate, Henry S. Foote of Mississippi took offense at 
 some of the things which developed in debate on the floor and 
 centered his venom particularly upon Senator Cameron. Words 
 passed back and forth between them until "something approach- 
 ing a personal collision occurred," as the Congressional Globe 
 recorded it. 96 This is clarified by an item in the Pennsylvania 
 Telegraph bearing the date-line of Washington, March seventh: 
 
 Mr. Foote made a personal explanation in regard to his encounter with 
 Mr. Cameron. . . . He admitted that slight blows had been exchanged 
 and expressed his regret that the dignity of the Senate had been vio- 
 lated through his rashness. The difficulty with Mr. Cameron, he said, 
 had been amicably settled. 97 
 
 The editor commented editorially on the same page, "It is said 
 that Mr. Foote, after he got sober on Sunday, made an apology 
 to General Cameron for his rudeness," and to the editor it seem- 
 ed that the General should be satisfied, "having both punished 
 Foote for his insolence, and then received an apology from 
 him." 
 
 Cameron was not an orator and only rarely did he enter at 
 any length into debate. His voice was weak and did not carry 
 well, yet when he did speak on the floor of the Senate, as, for 
 example, against the provisions of the Walker Tariff, he spoke 
 with strong conviction. His record in the Senate during the 
 twenty-ninth and thirtieth Congresses was one of close atten- 
 tion to the public business and of vigilant watchfulness for any 
 legislation that might work a discrimination against the poor or 
 less privileged classes, whether they were common soldiers, 
 country editors, or laborers on the Capitol grounds. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 STATE POLITICS AND THE CONTEST OF 1848 
 
 THE DEMOCRACY of Pennsylvania was in anything but 
 a placid state for some weeks following the election of 
 Cameron to the United States Senate in March of 1845. The 
 party regulars of the legislature issued an "Address to the De- 
 mocracy of Pennsylvania" condemning the unscrupulous means 
 used by their political opponents to gain their objectives and 
 calling down the wrath of the Democrats upon Cameron. They 
 desired that he should be severed "from the association and con- 
 fidence" of the party. The saner counsel of Buchanan prevailed, 
 however. He admonished them to submit to the election results 
 rather than, by pushing their views, cause further distraction 
 and division within the party. The feeling of indignation grad- 
 ually subsided. Nevertheless, for some months Cameron re- 
 mained under a political cloud. Except for being feted by his 
 home community in the course of the Fourth of July celebra- 
 tions, he was practically ignored by the Democrats of the state. 
 Not until he took such a decided stand for the welfare of Penn- 
 sylvania in the tariff discussions in Congress did he begin to re- 
 gain for himself a place of leadership at home. In the meantime, 
 an endorsement by General Cameron would have proved a def- 
 inite liability to a candidate in many sections of the state. 
 
 In the October elections of 1845, eleven senators and one 
 hundred representatives would be chosen for the legislature. Al- 
 though the Democrats felt fairly safe as far as the representa- 
 tives were concerned, they expected a close race for control 
 of the senate, partly because the terms of service of eight Demo- 
 cratic senators had expired to only three Whig senators. The 
 Democratic press pointed out the importance of inculcating a 
 spirit of "the utmost harmony in the brotherhood of our party." 1 
 
 The official returns of the election show that of the eleven 
 districts where senators were to be elected, Whigs gained four 
 
92 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 formerly Democratic districts and lost one district to their op- 
 ponents. This net gain was not sufficient to enable them to take 
 the control of the senate away from the Democrats, who now 
 had eighteen senators to the Whigs' fourteen and the Natives' 
 one. In the house of representatives, Democrats held better 
 than a two-to-one margin — sixty-eight to thirty-two. Thus the 
 Democrats organized both branches of the Pennsylvania leg- 
 islature. The senatorial district in which Cameron lived, Dauph- 
 in and Northumberland Counties, switched from the Demo- 
 cratic to the Whig column; and his representative district, 
 Dauphin, also went to the Whigs, although the Northumber- 
 land district returned a Democratic member. 2 
 
 By 1845 t ^e western interests of Virginia and Pennsylvania 
 were demanding that their legislatures make provision for the 
 granting of a right of way for the extension of the Baltimore 
 and Ohio Railroad to any terminus that the company might 
 select in either state. Yet the eastern interests of the two states 
 opposed these demand on the ground that the extension of this 
 railroad would injure the existing improvements of the states 
 in question and have a tendency to carry the trade of the West 
 to Baltimore instead of securing it for their own commercial 
 centers. Cameron had earlier become involved with this issue 
 when he was endeavoring to establish a railroad from Harris- 
 burg to Baltimore. At that time he expressed his firm belief that 
 the volume of western trade would be sufficient to feed the 
 enterprise and employ the capital not only of Philadelphia and 
 Baltimore but also of several other cities of similar size. 4 
 
 The railroad controversy proved to be the greatest and most 
 exciting topic before the Pennsylvania legislature in 1846. It 
 occupied the legislature during the whole session and caused 
 much division. The northern area of the state desired a con- 
 nection with New York's system of improvements in order to 
 get produce to market and to obtain supplies with greater fa- 
 cility. Pittsburgh and western Pennsylvania urged a connection 
 with the Maryland system of improvements for the same reasons. 
 Philadelphia and central Pennsylvania resisted both these at- 
 tempts to draw trade away from their own trading centers, and 
 from the public works which the state had been to so much 
 expense to construct. All kinds of log-rolling maneuvers were 
 
STATE POLITICS AND THE CONTEST OF 1848 93 
 
 employed by the different sections for the attainment of their 
 several interests. In order to keep the trade within the state, 
 the Philadelphians inaugurated a project for what they termed 
 the Central Railroad, to connect the two principal cities of the 
 state, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, by a continuous railroad. The 
 Pittsburgh interests and western Pennsylvanians generally treat- 
 ed this project as a mere expedient for defeating their demand 
 for a cheap and expeditious thoroughfare to market. Finally the 
 legislature passed a bill granting the right of way to the Balti- 
 more company, and also chartered a company to undertake 
 the project of establishing a continuous railroad from Philadel- 
 phia to Pittsburgh. In both cases the companies were hedged by 
 such conditions and provisos as to make the grants rather un- 
 satisfactory. 5 
 
 The autumn elections of 1846 tended to reflect the unfav- 
 orable reaction of Pennsylvania to the federal tariff policy. Two 
 years earlier Pennsylvania had returned to Congress a majority 
 favorable to the Democrats. The people of the state now felt 
 that they had been deceived by the Democratic leaders and re- 
 placed a number of them with Whigs. The result was that the 
 state's representation in the next House of Representatives was 
 sixteen Whigs, seven Democrats, and one Native American. The 
 state legislature also had a substantial majority of Whigs in each 
 branch. 6 
 
 David Wilmot was the only member of the Pennsylvania 
 delegation who had voted in Congress against the retention of 
 the Tariff of 1842. It was natural, therefore, when he sought re- 
 election in the twelfth district in 1846, that he should be the 
 object of a converging attack by the protectionist forces of the 
 state. The plan adopted to accomplish his defeat was to organize 
 and unite all opposition to him. Although the Democrats of the 
 twelfth district nominated him, there were dissenting Demo- 
 cratic elements. These forces were marshalled and on September 
 sixteenth the bolters nominated Robert G. White, a protection- 
 ist Democrat, to oppose Wilmot. The Whigs met in convention 
 the following day. With a proper resolution on the tariff, one 
 expressing a high consideration for the welfare of Pennsylvania, 
 and an expression of confidence in White, they deemed it in- 
 expedient to nominate a third candidate from the district, as 
 
94 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 they were satisfied White would, if elected, act in concert with 
 the Pennsylvania delegation in Congress in sustaining the inter- 
 ests of the state and the nation. 7 Despite the machinations of his 
 opponents Wilmot won over White with a majority of nearly 
 eight hundred. 
 
 The general landslide of Whig votes in Pennsylvania in 1 846 
 is attributable largely to distrust and disapproval of the tariff of 
 1846. It is a remarkable fact that Wilmot, who alone in his state 
 had supported the bill, should be one among the few of his party 
 to be returned to Congress. His election at this time was due 
 to the popularity of the low tariff of 1 846 in the twelfth Penn- 
 sylvania district and to his strong hold on the confidence and 
 affection of his supporters. 8 It must be remembered that Wilmot 
 had expressed himself during the campaign of 1844 as favoring 
 an alteration of the tariff act of 1842, and that he was not en- 
 tirely in favor of the bill of 1 846, as his votes show. When the 
 tariff bill was returned to the House of Representatives from 
 the Senate with an amendment he voted for indefinite postpone- 
 ment, and when that failed he cast his vote against the measure. 9 
 Cameron and Buchanan were among the Democrats of Pennsyl- 
 vania who backed the movement to defeat Wilmot. Cameron 
 reported the results of the election in Pennsylvania to Buchanan 
 about a week after it took place. He was not happy at the gen- 
 eral outcome, writing: "I need not tell you that we have been 
 routed. The only county in the state that has made a democratic 
 gain is Dauphin, and here we hung out our banner with the 
 tariff of 42, in the brightest colours, marked upon it." 10 The 
 implication is clear that he was anything but gratified at the 
 returns of the twelfth district of Pennsylvania, for, in the same 
 communication, he declared, "Wilmot has escaped by the hair 
 of his head, and only because White did not work as he should 
 have done to deserve success." Cameron's irritation at White's 
 remissness and Wilmot's victory was obvious. 
 
 The results of the 1846 election caused much worry among 
 the Democratic leaders of Pennsylvania. They looked forward 
 to the election of a new governor in 1847, although the pros- 
 pects of a victory for their party were none too favorable. Bu- 
 chanan, whose followers always kept him well informed, wrote 
 in November: 
 
STATE POLITICS AND THE CONTEST OF 1848 95 
 
 I confess I look with much apprehension to the present political condition 
 of Pennsylvania. Our system of internal improvements was conducted 
 in such a manner before the accession of Governor Shunk, as to en- 
 gender a swarm of blood suckers who grew rich upon the plunder of 
 the State. An honest administration has rendered these men desperate 
 and nothing will satisfy them but the selection of a Governor whom 
 they can use for their own advantage. 11 
 
 Buchanan urged greater exertions in behalf of the nomination 
 and re-election of Governor Shunk. Cameron had very actively 
 supported Shunk in 1845, but in this period seemed satisfied to 
 let things take their course without exerting himself greatly in 
 Shunk's favor. 
 
 Governor Shunk was nominated for a second term in spite 
 of the opposing elements to which Buchanan had referred. The 
 Whigs nominated as their candidate General James Irvin of 
 Milesburg, who had been a member of Congress from 1841 to 
 
 The federal administration not only had disappointed Penn- 
 sylvania in tariff legislation but also had opposed the Wilmot 
 Proviso. Pennsylvania had been moderately opposed to slavery 
 since the days of William Penn. The failure to add the Proviso 
 to the appropriation bill in the closing hours of the twenty- 
 ninth Congress did not stifle the sentiment in Pennsylvania for 
 it. It had received the entire vote of the state's delegation in 
 both House and Senate, and it continued to gain popularity in 
 the state. It asserted the doctrine of the Ordinance of 1787 
 against slavery, to which principle Pennsylvania was wedded. 
 By the summer of 1847, it appeared that the Democratic Party 
 was in danger of losing control of the state largely because of 
 the reaction to policies pursued by the national administration. 
 Extraordinary exertion would be required to prevent Demo- 
 cratic overthrow. 
 
 Buchanan was invited to participate in celebrations to be held 
 in Reading on the twenty-eighth of August in the interest of 
 strengthening the Democracy for the coming elections. Al- 
 though pressure of public duties kept him in Washington, he 
 wrote a long letter to the committee-in-charge in which, in a 
 wily and artful way and with much palaver about compromises, 
 he endeavored to pour oil on the troubled waters. He reviewed 
 
96 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 the history of the slavery question which threatened to con- 
 vulse the country and argued in favor of a sacred regard for 
 the federal Constitution and for the reserved rights of the states 
 as the basis on which alone the party could safely rest. By the 
 compromises on slavery in the Constitution, he contended, our 
 forefathers made an agreement with their brethren of the South 
 and it is not for the descendants of either party in the present 
 generation to cancel this solemn compact. When the question 
 threatened the dissolution of the Union after Missouri sought 
 to be admitted to statehood, a spirit of mutual compromise pre- 
 vailed. Under the Missouri Compromise the United States should 
 have no more slavery north of thirty-six degrees and thirty 
 minutes, and south of that line the decision should be left to the 
 people. Buchanan opposed the Wilmot Proviso, and advocated 
 the extention of the Missouri Compromise as a means of settling 
 the present agitation on the slavery question. He declared it to 
 be his opinion that "the harmony of the States and even the 
 security of the Union itself require that the line of the Missouri 
 Compromise should be extended to any new territory which 
 we may acquire from Mexico." He then offered the well- 
 known arguments concerning the unadaptability of the slave 
 system to the area west of Texas. 13 This letter was published by 
 the Democratic press in various parts of the country and was 
 commented upon very favorably. 14 
 
 Cameron opposed Buchanan on the issues concerning the 
 Wilmot Proviso and the Missouri Compromise; he had sup- 
 ported the Wilmot Proviso in the Senate. It must be said, how- 
 ever, that his vote was based upon the request of the Pennsyl- 
 vania legislature for its delegation in Congress to support the 
 measure, rather than upon any deep-seated convictions upon 
 slavery. 
 
 Buchanan was encouraged by the spirit shown among the 
 Democrats in Reading, who planned the afore-mentioned cele- 
 bration, yet a tone of anxiety pervaded his letter to them. He 
 believed that the consequences of this election were all-impor- 
 tant not only for Pennsylvania but also for the Union: that on 
 its result might probably depend "the ascendancy of the Demo- 
 cracy of the Union for years to come." The candidate for 
 governor was above reproach; he was honest, able, well-tried, 
 
STATE POLITICS AND THE CONTEST OF 1848 97 
 
 and had been regularly nominated by the party. In the light 
 of past political experiences he advised careful and close party 
 organization and action, adding, "Our vigilance ought to be 
 constantly on the alert until the moment of victory." 15 
 
 The contest was close and hard fought. The Democrats suc- 
 ceeded in re-electing Governor Shunk over his Whig rival, 
 General Irvin. His majority was slightly larger than that won 
 over Alarkle three years earlier. Governor Shunk was not a 
 man of outstanding ability but had gained by sheer industry 
 and integrity the respect of friends and foes alike. His energies 
 during his first administration had been largely devoted to 
 maintenance of the public credit of the state. His popularity 
 was due in considerable measure to his unblemished integrity. 16 
 In the legislature the Democrats lost control of the senate, 
 which stood fourteen Democrats to nineteen Whigs. However, 
 they retained a large majority in the house, sixty-three Demo- 
 crats to thirty-seven Whigs, and would have a majority of 
 twenty-one on any joint ballot. 17 The importance of the Penn- 
 sylvania election for the national administration is signified by 
 the administration newspaper, the Washington Union, which 
 jubilantly congratulated the country upon the results of the 
 election, and added its reasons thus: 
 
 We hail this victory, therefore, as the most important which could be 
 won. We have carried Pennsylvania against the tariff of the manu- 
 factures. We have carried it against the authors of the Wilmot Proviso. 
 The enlightened people of Pennsylvania have decided the issue of war 
 in favor of their country. 18 
 
 Many of the Pennsylvania Democrats could not forget Cam- 
 eron's adroit management of the senatorial election of 1845, 
 which had resulted in the defeat of their candidate, Woodward, 
 and the choice of himself. He had not taken an active part in 
 the 1 847 campaign, and the re-election of Governor Shunk was 
 made the signal for an attack upon Cameron by many people in 
 Shunk's confidence, under the general leadership of Col. Reah 
 Frazer. They began by asserting in distant quarters that Cam- 
 eron had voted for General Irvin, the Whig candidate. Cam- 
 eron pretended no personal attachment to Shunk, but he de- 
 clared it was well known to everyone in Middletown that he 
 
98 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 had voted for him. The papers had reiterated his intention of 
 doing so up to the time of the election. He had worked hard 
 for Shunk in his first election but this time he merely did his 
 duty to the Democratic Party. This attack hurt and worried 
 Cameron. He appealed to Buchanan, on the basis of past unre- 
 mitted services of a friendly character, to get John W. Forney, 
 a newspaper editor and one of Buchanan's lieutenants, to insert 
 a statement of the facts relative to the matter in his newspaper. 19 
 
 The New York Tribune, a Whig newspaper, placed on its 
 front page an article from its correspondent in Westchester, 
 Pennsylvania, in which he explained the defeat of the Whigs 
 on the grounds that the State Central Committee had advised a 
 quiet campaign. It was believed that Porter, Cameron, Muhlen- 
 berg, and other leaders among the Democrats desired the de- 
 feat of Shunk. They advised the Whigs to make no great stir 
 in the campaign but quietly to give their vote for Irvin, and the 
 dissatisfied Democrats would insure Shunk's defeat. A strong 
 and excited Whig campaign would drive all the Democrats into 
 the ranks of Shunk. The writer charged that the Whigs were 
 deceived and betrayed. The quiet campaign had lulled thous- 
 ands to sleep and they had not gone to the polls to vote. The 
 support which was promised for Irvin did not materialize, while 
 the Democrats turned out in their usual strength for Shunk. He 
 charged also that the portion of "the Democracy" which pre- 
 tended to be opposed to the re-election of Shunk was made up 
 of earnest advocates of General Zachary Taylor for president. 
 They wisely apprehended that the election of the Whig candi- 
 date for governor would give Clay an advantage over their 
 favorite for Whig support; hence they voted for General Irvin's 
 defeat. 20 The Democrats appear thus to have duped the Whigs 
 in the shrewd game of politics. Cameron was still a Democrat. 
 The known fact that he and some of the other Democratic 
 leaders of Pennsylvania did not at the time bear the blessing of 
 the party provided a perfect setting for just such scheme as de- 
 scribed in the columns of the Tribune. 
 
 Governor Shunk was in ill health at the time of his second 
 inauguration in January, 1848. On July ninth, confined to his 
 bed by an advanced stage of tuberculosis, he resigned his office. 21 
 Two days earlier Cameron, having learned that Shunk would 
 
STATE POLITICS AND THE CONTEST OF 1848 99 
 
 resign, wrote to Buchanan about the necessity for a new elec- 
 tion in Pennsylvania and declared: "I have come to the con- 
 clusion, after much reflection that you should be the candidate. 
 It can be presented in such a shape as to make your acceptance 
 the result of a wish to save the party — as Wright did in 1 844." 22 
 Cameron strongly urged this course upon Buchanan and hoped 
 he would make no decision against it before they had a chance 
 to talk it over. George Plitt, an ardent Buchanan supporter 
 from Philadelphia, wrote: "Were we allowed to use your name 
 for Governor, as many have suggested, we would give the ticket 
 an overwhelming majority." He sought Buchanan's opinion as 
 to what the State Central Committee ought to do. 23 The tone of 
 Plitt's letter was solicitous while that of Cameron's had more of a 
 commanding note — a note of decision. The heavy demands of 
 his office and the recent campaign had sapped Shunk's strength 
 beyond ability to throw off the disease. He lived but eleven 
 days after his resignation. 24 
 
 William Freame Johnston, a Whig and speaker of the senate, 
 succeeded to the governorship according to the provisions of 
 the constitution. The constitution made the further provision, 
 that, in the event of a vacancy in the governorship as much as 
 three months before the general fall election, the temporary 
 executive should order a new election. The requirement was 
 that the writ should be issued three calendar months before 
 the election. Inasmuch as Governor Shunk's resignation was 
 written upon the last day possible to allow a special election for 
 his successor that fall, and inasmuch as Johnston did not assume 
 the governorship until July twenty-sixth, a delicate question 
 of constitutional interpretation was raised. Johnston demon- 
 strated his democratic spirit and settled the question by ordering 
 a new election to be held in October, 1848. 25 
 
 In state conventions held by the Whigs and the Democrats 
 at the end of August, the former nominated Johnston and the 
 latter nominated Morris Longstreth. 26 The contest in October 
 was very close. Johnston was elected over Longstreth by the 
 small majority of three hundred and two. In the legislature the 
 Whigs increased their senatorial majority, giving them twenty- 
 one members to the Democrats' twelve, and swept the Demo- 
 crats from control of the house of representatives, with sixty- 
 
ioo SIMON CAMERON 
 
 five Whigs to thirty-five Democrats. 27 Johnston was an ardent 
 protectionist and attracted votes from that wing of the Demo- 
 cratic Party. He had been a Democrat but, influenced by the 
 tariff issue, had changed parties in 1841. 28 The part played by 
 Cameron in the state elections this year is not known. Undoubt- 
 edly his tariff principles drew him close to Johnston. The un- 
 pleasant aftermath of the election of the previous year was still 
 fresh in his mind and he was not ready to break openly with 
 the Democratic Party. He seems to have kept his own counsel 
 and remained quiet during the campaign. 
 
 The Public Ledger, three days after the election and with in- 
 complete returns, noted that the Whig vote was heavier than 
 in the 1847 election and believed that Johnston was beyond 
 doubt elected. It further noted that: 
 
 two-thirds of the members of Congress have probably also been carried 
 by the same party [Whig], with a majority of the Legislature. This 
 secures the Whigs the control of the State for the next year, through 
 the Assembly, and the control of the Assembly for three years through 
 the Governor, and gives them a United States Senator in place of Mr. 
 Cameron. 
 
 On the basis of the results of this October election, the Whigs 
 claimed the state for Taylor. The paper pointed out that the 
 Democratic confidence which existed before the election was 
 destroyed, and that the interest of all parties in the approaching 
 national election was increased. 29 
 
 Public interest in the presidential election of 1848 was being 
 whetted at least twenty months before the event. Throughout 
 the nation greater interest was evinced in the candidacy of 
 Zachary Taylor than in that of any other candidate of either 
 party. In April, 1847, Niles' Register noted that "the public 
 Journals of the country are teeming with the proceedings of 
 Taylor meetings." 30 A month earlier he had been formally 
 nominated in a large meeting of the Whigs of Iowa, composed 
 of the most influential and leading men from all parts of the 
 state. Although in several sections of the country he had been 
 nominated by local groups, it was believed that Iowa was the 
 first to endorse him in a state- wide meeting. 31 James Cameron, 
 observing the Taylor movement, wrote from New Orleans his 
 
 
STATE POLITICS AND THE CONTEST OF 1848 101 
 
 belief that Taylor would be the next president. He also express- 
 ed a hope that his brother Simon could be the vice presidential 
 candidate on the Taylor ticket. 32 There is no evidence that 
 Simon had either the desire or the ambition to be the running 
 mate of Taylor. The letter is interesting as indicating the dis- 
 satisfaction of the Camerons with Democratic policies under 
 Polk and their political instability at this time; also perhaps a 
 bit of opportunism is revealed, a characteristic which becomes 
 more apparent at a later period. 
 
 It was no secret that many of the Cameron men of Pennsyl- 
 vania did more than merely look with favor upon General 
 Taylor's candidacy. On the twenty-first of September, a Demo- 
 cratic meeting was held at New Berlin in which John Snyder, 
 a former member of Congress, offered resolutions nominating 
 Taylor for the presidency. They were voted down three to 
 one by the Shunk men, after which the Cameron men withdrew 
 in a body. 33 Two months earlier Taylor had been nominated 
 at a meeting in Harrisburg. Judge William Dock, president of 
 the meeting, communicated the action to Taylor, who replied 
 with expressions of gratitude for the honor bestowed upon him 
 and of assurance that if elected he would zealously endeavor to 
 serve them for the good of the country. 34 In answer to a friend's 
 letter, Cameron wrote in January, 1848, that "Gnl. Taylor will 
 be nominated, I think beyond a doubt by the Whigs, and it is 
 pretty certain that he will accept the nomination as he has ours 
 and all others. Mr. Clay will not be a candidate I am assured 
 upon good authority." 35 With reference to procedure in Penn- 
 sylvania Cameron advised: 
 
 You can better judge the proper course for our friends to pursue than I 
 can at this distance from you. My belief is however, that we should not 
 select an Electoral ticket until matters are a little more developed. You 
 might appoint a committee with authority to select a ticket hereafter. 36 
 
 Occasionally a local Whig meeting in Pennsylvania would 
 adopt resolutions for the nomination of Henry Clay for the 
 presidency. Taylor, however, was the favorite in almost all of 
 the Whig gatherings. Many Democratic meetings also passed 
 resolutions favoring him. 
 
 The Democrats of Pennsylvania in the early stage of the 
 
io2 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 campaign divided their support between several candidates. 
 Among those most frequently mentioned in the resolutions for 
 nomination were Buchanan, Dallas, Van Buren, and Shunk, the 
 latter more in the spirit of a compliment to their Governor 
 than with serious intentions. The precarious state of his health 
 would have prevented Shunk from actively engaging in a presi- 
 dential campaign. The caucus of the Democratic members of 
 the legislature in February, 1848, came out strongly in support 
 of James Buchanan. In a prepared address, unanimously adopted, 
 he was recommended to the coming Democratic national con- 
 vention. The Washington Union of February fourteenth gave 
 a full column to the subject of the selection of a candidate for 
 the presidency and to the claim that Pennsylvania should have 
 the candidate, contending that the nomination of Buchanan had 
 been too long deferred. 37 Buchanan, from the viewpoint of 
 background and training, was probably the fittest candidate 
 whom the Democrats could have nominated. He had made it a 
 rule, however, never to press his claims upon the consideration 
 of his party at the risk of impairing party harmony or effi- 
 ciency. He had adhered to this rule on more than one occasion 
 in the past and did not now depart from it. 
 
 The Democratic national convention assembled in Baltimore 
 on May 22, 1848, preceding the Whig convention, which was 
 to meet in Philadelphia, in about two weeks. Despite whatever 
 aid and encouragement Cameron and his men may have given to 
 the Whig supporters of General Taylor in Pennsylvania during 
 the winter of 1847- 1848, Cameron was himself in the Demo- 
 cratic ranks. The Democratic caucus nominated Buchanan as 
 Pennsylvania's favorite son for the presidency, and the state's 
 delegation to the Baltimore Convention was instructed to sup- 
 port him. Cameron boarded the Buchanan band-wagon and 
 went to the convention as a member of the Pennsylvania dele- 
 gation. 38 
 
 During the convention there appeared to be a revival of that 
 cordial relationship between Cameron and Buchanan, the for- 
 mer again the faithful lieuetnant of the latter. Cameron worked 
 for Buchanan's interests and kept a close watch over other 
 delegations which they hoped would support the Pennsylvania 
 nominee. Each night of the first three days of the convention 
 
STATE POLITICS AND THE CONTEST OF 1848 103 
 
 Cameron wrote to Buchanan setting forth in some detail the 
 intriguing and bargaining that was being conducted at the con- 
 vention, even within the Pennsylvania delegation; and, at the 
 close of the convention, reported on what he considered a 
 blunder of the Pennsylvania delegation in favoring, against his 
 advice and urgent opposition, the admission of the contested 
 New York delegation. The Pennsylvania delegation included 
 several men who were rather hostile to Buchanan. They favored 
 Shunk, but would take either Dallas or Cass in preference to 
 Buchanan. Cameron kept Buchanan informed on the brightening 
 or waning of his prospects. Early in the convention he believed 
 that Buchanan stood an equal chance with others of receiving 
 the nomination of the convention. 39 
 
 Buchanan was nominated by W. McCandless of the Pennsyl- 
 vania delegation. Lewis Cass of Michigan, and Levi Woodbury 
 of New Hampshire, along with Buchanan, were the leading 
 candidates, none of the others receiving more than nine votes. 
 Cass lacked but one vote of receiving half those cast on the first 
 ballot. The two-thirds rule having been adopted the voting was 
 continued through four ballots. The Cass vote steadily increased 
 while Buchanan's vote, which gave him second place on the 
 first ballot and third place thereafter, as steadily decreased. The 
 fourth ballot gave Cass one hundred seventy-nine, ten votes 
 more than were necessary for nomination. William O. Butler 
 of Kentucky, received the nomination for the office of vice 
 president. 40 Throughout the balloting, the Pennsylvania dele- 
 gation abided by its instruction, each time casting its twenty- 
 six votes for Buchanan. 
 
 The Whig national convention assembled in Philadelphia on 
 June seventh. The leading names presented were Zachary Tay- 
 lor, Henry Clay, Winfield Scott, and Daniel Webster. On the 
 fourth ballot Taylor received one hundred seventy-one of the 
 two hundred eighty votes cast and was declared the party's 
 nominee. Millard Fillmore of New York, was chosen as Tay- 
 lor's running-mate on the second ballot. 41 
 
 One more political convention must be mentioned for this 
 campaign year, not because the party was conceded any chance 
 of success, but because it polled more than one tenth of the 
 votes cast in the November election, drawing so heavily from 
 
io 4 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 the Democratic strength in New York that it turned the result 
 in favor of the Whigs. The "Barnburners" withdrew from the 
 Baltimore convention with a frank avowal of purpose not to 
 accept the nomination of Lewis Cass. They met in convention 
 at Utica, New York, on June twenty-second and twenty-third. 
 However, this convention gave place in importance to the Free- 
 Soil convention which met at Buffalo on August ninth. It was 
 designed to unite into one party various bolting elements: the 
 Barnburner Democrats, the Conscience Whigs, the Liberty 
 men, and all others who would submerge past political differ- 
 ences in common opposition to slavery extension. The Buffalo 
 Convention nominated Martin Van Buren for president and 
 Charles Francis Adams for vice president. 42 
 
 The campaign in Pennsylvania in 1848 was not far different 
 from that of presidential canvasses of previous years. The slight 
 interest in the state in the third party ticket added only a bit 
 of variation. It did not change the results. The Democrats at 
 their national convention in Baltimore directed the appoint- 
 ment of a central committee of one member from each state to 
 take general charge of the canvass and of the party's interests 
 throughout the nation. This marked the beginning of the party 
 national committees. 43 It tended to give greater permanence and 
 unity to party organization. Pennsylvania's vote was important 
 in determining the outcome of this election; and, since the major 
 parties were so evenly divided there, party leaders from other 
 states spent time in the state during the campaign urging and 
 pleading the cause of their candidates. A notable example of 
 this was the work of Senator John M. Clayton of Delaware. 
 Clayton rendered valuable service for the Whigs in Pennsyl- 
 vania and was later rewarded by Taylor with appointment to 
 the office of Secretary of State. 44 
 
 The early elections in some parts of the country had shown 
 a definite trend in favor of the Whigs. The popular vote in 
 November gave Taylor a plurality over Cass of almost forty 
 thousand, while Van Buren polled more than two hundred 
 ninety-one thousand votes. A comparison of the votes of 1848 
 and 1844 indicates that the votes of Van Buren came primarily 
 from the Democrats, especially in New York, where Cass had 
 therefore no chance. 45 The electoral votes for Taylor reached 
 
 
STATE POLITICS AND THE CONTEST OF 1848 105 
 
 one hundred sixty-three; Cass received one hundred twenty- 
 seven. The change of the vote of either New York or Pennsyl- 
 vania from Whig to Democratic would have elected Cass rather 
 than Taylor. The decision, however, really rested with New 
 York, where Taylor won by a plurality, wtih Van Buren carry- 
 ing a larger vote than the Democratic candidate, Cass, while 
 in Pennsylvania Taylor had a clear majority. 46 
 
 The Whig victory in Pennsylvania was foreshadowed by 
 the October state election, which had shown a marked devel- 
 opment of Whig strength. Taylor received a plurality of more 
 than thirteen thousand five hundred over Cass and a majority of 
 more than two thousand over the combined votes for Cass and 
 for Van Buren. 47 Cameron's home county, Dauphin, gave the 
 Whigs sixty-two per cent of the votes cast. 48 As early as two 
 o'clock Wednesday morning, November eighth, a dispatch 
 from Philadelphia to the New York Tribune conceded Whig 
 victories in many sections of the state. It also stated that the 
 Democrats conceded the state to the Whigs who were talking 
 of a ten thousand majority. 49 
 
 Efforts were made to explain the defeat of the Democrats in 
 1848, and undoubtedly Cameron correctly set forth the cause 
 of defeat in Pennsylvania. He placed the blame upon the Walker 
 Tariff of 1846. In his arguments against this measure before the 
 Senate he had declared: "Pass this bill, and the democratic 
 party must again be defeated." 50 The Pennsylvania Telegraph 
 after the election quoted extensively from this speech by Cam- 
 eron, referring to it as fulfilled prophecy. The paper declared 
 that the passage of the Tariff Act of 1846 in defiance of the 
 wishes of Pennsylvania, in the face of the Kane letter, and the 
 universal declarations of the party leaders before the election, 
 laid the chief foundation for the Whig success in 1848. The 
 people of Pennsylvania felt that they had been deceived by 
 their trusted leaders — they had therefore decided to try other 
 and "more reliable men." The article closed with a ringing note: 
 "Let it be recollected that Pennsylvania has always voted for 
 the successful candidates for the Presidency. She has made her 
 power felt in every Presidential election — let demagogues be- 
 ware how they abuse her confidence." 51 
 
 On the floor of the Senate, five weeks after the election, a de- 
 
io6 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 bate grew out of the reading of Secretary Walker's Treasury 
 Report. Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi moved the print- 
 ing of twenty thousand extra copies embodying the new system 
 of finance which, he said, had been in operation long enough 
 to be tested by the people. Cameron, who was a member of the 
 committee on printing, challenged this view and hoped so large 
 a number would not be ordered. He thought that the country 
 had already decided on the merits of the Secretary's system of 
 finance, and had decided against it. In Pennsylvania the ques- 
 tion upon the financial system had been fairly before the people 
 and their decision was beyond question. It was his opinion that 
 the candidate of the Democratic Party at the last election was 
 defeated chiefly on account of the opposition of the people of 
 the United States to this financial system of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, and that the Democratic Party would not have been 
 prostrated had it not been for this system. 52 James G. Blaine 
 corroborated Cameron's views with the opinion that the Tariff 
 Act of 1846 had no small influence in the overthrow of the 
 Administration in the next congressional election, and in the 
 defeat of General Cass for the presidency in 1848. As senator 
 from Michigan, Cass had voted for the bill, influenced thereto 
 by his southern associates. Pennsylvania, Blaine said, punished 
 Cass for his free-trade course by giving her electoral vote to 
 Taylor in 1848. If she had given her vote to Cass he would have 
 been chosen president. 53 It is true that tariff was discussed as 
 one of the issues in Pennsylvania in the campaign of 1848, but 
 apparently it played very little part as an issue in other states. 54 
 With the general election out of the way, political interest 
 in Pennsylvania turned next to the election of a United States 
 Senator. Cameron's term in the Senate would expire on March 
 4, 1849. What were the prospects for his re-election? His offi- 
 cial political career began with his election to the United States 
 Senate in 1845 to succeed Buchanan, who resigned to become 
 Polk's Secretary of State. Though no important chapter of the 
 political history of Pennsylvania for the ensuing generation can 
 be written without recognizing the power and influence of 
 Cameron, this victory did not yet establish his control over the 
 state. His election had been won by fusion methods in which 
 he organized the opposing groups and defeated the caucus 
 
STATE POLITICS AND THE CONTEST OF 1848 107 
 
 nominee of his own party. This incurred bitter Democratic 
 opposition to him. The Whigs desired to be represented by a 
 man of their own political faith, and Cameron had been out of 
 harmony with the Polk administration too frequently in the 
 past four years to be able to command the endorsement and sup- 
 port of the Democrats. 
 
 Judge James Campbell of Philadelphia, who was a leader of 
 the Democratic forces opposed to Cameron's re-election, wrote 
 that the work of selecting proper delegates had been accom- 
 plished in his city and county "in spite of the most vigorous 
 exertions of all the friends of General Cameron, all of whom 
 took the deepest interest in the contest." The friends of Cam- 
 eron resorted to an old political trick which did not meet with 
 success. Knowing they could hold their own votes they caused 
 other candidates to be set up in order to draw support away 
 from the leading opponent, and thus win by dividing the 
 strength of the opposition. 55 
 
 Shortly after the general election in November the Blair 
 County Whig, rejoicing in the victory of the Whigs in Penn- 
 sylvania, declared that it secured to them a United States Sena- 
 tor for six years. It raised the question: "Who among the many 
 noble and patriotic statesmen of Pennsylvania shall receive the 
 honor of that station?" It answered its own question by raising 
 its voice in favor of the Honorable James Cooper of Adams 
 County. This newspaper declared that "he not only deserves it 
 for his long and able advocacy of Whig Principles, but the 
 interests of this great Commonwealth demand that she should 
 be represented in the United States Senate by one of admitted 
 ability and legislative experience." 56 
 
 Preliminary to the meeting of the legislature in a joint ses- 
 sion or convention to elect a United States Senator, the senate 
 on January fifth nominated nine persons, both Democrats and 
 Whigs, whom it deemed worthy of consideration by the joint 
 session. Among these nine were Simon Cameron, George W. 
 Woodward, James Cooper, Thaddeus Stevens and John Serg- 
 eant. 57 In order for Cameron to be returned to the Senate for 
 a full term, it would be necessary for him to effect a reconcilia- 
 tion with the Democrats or to duplicate the coalition of four 
 years earlier. He was unable to do either. 
 
108 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 The legislature, meeting as a single body on January ninth, 
 on the third ballot elected James Cooper, Whig. The final vote 
 stood Cooper, sixty-six; Richard Brodhead, sixty-two; and Thad- 
 deus Stevens, three. 58 Brodhead had gained the support of the 
 Democrats and his votes did not waver from the total of sixty- 
 two on any of the three ballots. Cameron apparently was not 
 nominated in the convention, for his name does not appear on 
 any of the ballots. Cooper resigned the office of attorney gen- 
 eral of Pennsylvania. His credentials were laid before the Senate 
 on January twelfth by Vice-President Dallas. 59 March fourth 
 was to mark for Cameron a withdrawal from political office- 
 holding which was only temporary. Greater accomplishments 
 came after this rather brief eclipse. The last weeks of his first 
 term in the Senate were spent, as previously indicated, in close 
 attention to matters of national legislation, but he was constantly 
 watchful concerning the interests of Pennsylvania. 
 
 General Cameron continued his financial and business con- 
 nections during his senatorial term, even branching out into 
 some new fields. For a time after March fourth, business matters, 
 long somewhat neglected because of pressing congressional du- 
 ties, again absorbed most of his attention. He was prepared to 
 maintain his interest in politics and to move forward with his 
 business without delay. Buchanan, who went out of office as 
 soon as his successor, John M. Clayton, was ready to take over 
 the duties as Secretary of State, also returned to Pennsylvania 
 with the intention of retiring from public life. Having pur- 
 chased "Wheatland" from William M. Meredith the preceding 
 fall, 60 Buchanan took up life on his new estate just outside Lan- 
 caster, which had been his home for almost forty years. "Wheat- 
 land" became his permanent abode, except when he occupied 
 official residences in London and Washington, until his death 
 in 1868. 
 
 While Cameron had served but four years in national public 
 life, and, having maintained his private interests, could easily 
 step into private life again, the situation was somewhat different 
 for Buchanan. He was a member of the legal profession. He had 
 been in federal public service, in either elected or appointed 
 positions, almost constantly since 1821. Although he held no 
 public office during the four years of the Taylor and Fillmore 
 
STATE POLITICS AND THE CONTEST OF 1848 109 
 
 administrations he could not avoid taking an active interest in 
 public affairs; and when his party returned to power in 1853, 
 Buchanan again entered the public service as United States 
 Minister to the Court of St. James. 61 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 BUSINESS AND POLITICS 
 
 THE FOURTH of March, 1849, marked for Cameron not 
 retirement from politics but merely a temporary eclipse in 
 his upward struggle for political leadership in Pennsylvania. He 
 devoted his talents first to the expanding and broadening of his 
 material fortune, business having occupied a secondary place 
 during the past four years. It must be borne in mind, however, 
 that he had no intention of retiring from the political arena and 
 therefore kept his finger on the pulses of the state and the na- 
 tion. 
 
 During his term in the Senate, Cameron was a member of the 
 Naval Affairs Committee. Among the bills reported was one 
 providing for the construction of floating dry-docks at Phil- 
 adelphia. His efforts to further naval work at Philadelphia were 
 fruitless for the time being, 1 but his work with the committee 
 gave him a practical insight into the business of construction and 
 repair of naval craft. He was able in the summer of 1 847 to turn 
 his interest in naval affairs to private gain by providing Duff 
 Green with capital for a business venture. Through his friend- 
 ship with John Y. Mason, secretary of the navy, Green secured 
 a contract to construct and repair vessels of the government. A. 
 Mehaffy was employed to conduct the work, and in the fall 
 Green opened the Gosport Navy Yard, at Norfolk, Virginia. 2 
 This ship-yard did a thriving business until the outbreak of the 
 Civil War. 
 
 Another private investment was being made in New Orleans 
 during this year. Cameron had not visited that area since 1830 
 when he had been connected with the building of the New 
 Orleans Canal, which connected the Mississippi River with 
 Lake Ponchartrain. At that time he had written favorably about 
 the outlook for New Orleans and the broad opportunities for 
 enterprising business men. James Cameron, a younger brother of 
 
BUSINESS AND POLITICS in 
 
 Simon, had gone to New Orleans to recuperate after a period 
 of illness. James, who reciprocated Simon's fondness for him, 
 wrote that he had purchased several lots in New Orleans and 
 would purchase more. He had the deeds made out to Donald, 
 the son of Simon, and expressed the belief that this investment 
 would make Donald a rich man. 3 It is not clear from the letter 
 whether the transactions were made by James acting as agent 
 for Simon or by James on his own authority merely venturing 
 an investment for Donald. It might well have been the latter, 
 and probably was, since James had no children and held such 
 deep affection for his brother and his children. His will made 
 two years later designated Simon as one of the executors and 
 directed that after his death his real estate should be sold, bills 
 paid and balance divided into four equal parts: one fourth to go 
 to Simon, each of the other fourths to be established as life- 
 interest trust funds, the interest therefrom to go to his [James'] 
 wife Rebecca and the sisters of James and Simon, Eliza and 
 Catherine; after the death of these three the principal to go to 
 Simon and his children. 4 
 
 The Tariff of 1846 had worked a serious hardship upon the 
 industrial interests of Pennsylvania. The ironmasters and coal 
 operators tended to feel that they had been particularly singled 
 out for destruction. Even the war demands left the ironmasters 
 with a discouraged outlook. Cameron was hopeful that news 
 of peace with Mexico would "cheer up our drooping business." 5 
 This view was not shared by Thomas Elder, another Pennsyl- 
 vania ironmaster, who admitted, however, that peace could not 
 place them in a worse position than they were already. He saw 
 that the business was going down and that "many must smash." 6 
 The complaints of the ironmasters, and coal operators, against the 
 Tariff of 1 846 must be understood as natural complaints against 
 an act which tended to cut down their profits. Some iron 
 furnaces and coal mines were closed for a time but sound busi- 
 ness establishments were not "smashed." In less than a decade, 
 under this same tariff, these enterprises were enjoying boom 
 times. 
 
 During the early and middle eighteen-fifties a vast amount 
 of the correspondence found in the Cameron Papers deals with 
 purely business matters: banking; iron manufacture; real estate; 
 
ii2 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 stock deals; railroad building, expansion, and consolidation; and 
 many other business interests of a lesser nature. Varied oppor- 
 tunities for investment were offered Cameron in numerous parts 
 of the state by both friends and strangers. Innumerable were 
 the letters written to him with special appeals for loans or gifts. 7 
 
 As earlier noted in connection with the business of the Bank 
 of Middletown, Cameron was a man of most loyal devotion to 
 his friends, and it was difficult for him to refuse a loan to a 
 friend. Loans were frequently made to business and political 
 associates without sufficient security. He felt hampered and 
 harassed by his board of directors because of their demands 
 that he insist on mortgages or other forms of security for the 
 bank in order to cover loans which he made. 8 It was difficult 
 for a man of such sentiments to conduct a banking business 
 successfully. 
 
 In 1852 James Donald Cameron, the younger of Simon's 
 sons, was graduated from Princeton and returned to his home 
 in Middletown. His father had planned a career in law for him. 
 With a place for study assigned to him in the bank he began 
 his course of reading law. While thus occupied he overheard 
 most of the conversations relative to the business of the bank. 
 He learned that the bank's finances were in a shaky condition, 
 because of his father's practice of leniency in making loans to 
 friends with insufficient security. He persuaded his father to 
 permit him to give up the planned legal career and take over 
 the banking business. He almost immediately demonstrated that 
 he had in a large measure the energy, ability, and shrewdness 
 which characterized his father. He became cashier and later 
 president of the Bank of Middletown. As the elder Cameron 
 became increasingly absorbed in state and national politics, and 
 as the younger man demonstrated his financial and business 
 acumen, more and more of the family properties came under 
 his management. By the time General Cameron returned to 
 the United States Senate in 1857, Donald was practically the 
 financial manager of the family's affairs. 9 
 
 In addition to the management of his father's affairs Donald 
 also gained practical experience through participation in busi- 
 ness on his own responsibility. The Union Canal needed im- 
 provement and repairs. Simon Cameron and George Smuller, 
 
BUSINESS AND POLITICS 113 
 
 collector of tolls at Middletown for twenty-two years, until 
 he resigned in April of 1858, signed as security for Donald, who 
 invested five thousand dollars in partnership with John O. 
 Rockafellow and H. S. Dupp to make improvements and do 
 repair work on the Canal. 10 In succeeding years Donald's busi- 
 ness ventures led him into much the same fields that had oc- 
 cupied the attention of his father: railroads, real estate, stocks, 
 and many other cash enterprises. 
 
 In 1853 Cameron was elected president of the Lebanon Val- 
 ley Railroad Company, a company recently organized and at 
 first badly managed financially. Under his wise leadership and 
 management the financial status of the road was improved. 11 
 It was later consolidated with others to form a larger system, 
 the Philadelphia and Reading. Cameron was also mainly in- 
 strumental in the formation of the Susquehanna Railroad Com- 
 pany, which later consolidated with the Northern Central 
 Railway. The Susquehanna Railroad connected the upper val- 
 leys of the Susquehanna with the capital of the state. This road 
 with the Lebanon Valley Railroad laid the basis for direct and 
 continuous rail connection with New York City. A better idea 
 of the extent of his business and financial interests may be ob- 
 tained by noting that about 1854 he was at the same time presi- 
 dent of three railroad companies — the Northern Central, the 
 Susquehanna, and the Lebanon — President of the Common- 
 wealth Insurance Company, and Cashier of the Bank of Mid- 
 dletown, besides being a director or manager of several other 
 institutions and having a large private business of his own to 
 manage and superintend. 12 An admirer who desired to do some 
 building for the Lebanon Valley Railroad wished Cameron 
 were president of all the railroads and banks in the country. 1 '' 
 
 Pennsylvania early felt the effects of the panic of 1857. Cam- 
 eron regretted the stringency of the money market, both in the 
 city and the country banks, which prevented him from ac- 
 commodating old friends. He tended to place the blame for the 
 condition upon the system of economy fostered upon the 
 country by the low-tariff policy. 14 His mail during the latter 
 part of 1857 and through 1858 is burdened with facts about the 
 depression, which was in essence the collapse of a boom, and 
 particularly about the suffering of the workers in the coal and 
 
ii 4 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 iron industries. Henry McCormick, an ironmaster of Harris- 
 burg, urged upon Cameron the necessity of protection for iron. 
 He cited the cost of manufacturing of American rail as forty- 
 five dollars per ton while English railroad-iron was quoted in 
 New York the past week at forty-one dollars per ton for one 
 lot of fifty thousand tons. He declared that "in our region, 
 Harrisburg and Columbia, eleven of the fourteen furnaces are 
 out of blast/' Men were literally begging for work for enough 
 wages merely to buy bread for their families, and would be 
 content with fifty or even forty cents per day. The coal re- 
 gion, he said, was even worse smitten, as the coal market was 
 so much dependent upon iron manufacture. 15 Cameron needed 
 no urging to support protection. He had been a leading advo- 
 cate of protectionism for almost forty years and was better 
 known for his allegiance to this than to any other political doc- 
 trine. 
 
 During Cameron's term as United States Senator he had in- 
 teresting experiences. He made many friends among the mem- 
 bers of the Senate and his letters then and later reveal that he 
 thoroughly enjoyed life. He made many trips to Washington 
 in the months following March, 1849, and it was only natural 
 that he should seek to return to a senatorial seat. 
 
 James Cooper had succeeded him for the six-year term. Dan- 
 iel Sturgeon, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, would 
 complete his second term in March, 185 1, and it was under- 
 stood that he would not seek re-election. Cameron therefore 
 fixed his attention upon the election of 1851. It would be a 
 fight against great odds. He had been given almost no consid- 
 eration for re-election in 1849, an< ^ t ^e Whigs with a majority 
 in the legislature had easily elected their nominee. He had won 
 many friends among the Whigs by his tariff policy, but, with 
 a majority, they preferred a member of their own party; yet 
 he retained many Whigs among his following. In the eyes of 
 many Democrats he was a deserter who could not be trusted 
 to carry out their policies. 
 
 The Democrats regained control of the Pennsylvania legis- 
 lature in October 1850 16 and therefore seemed assured of re- 
 taining a Democrat in the United States Senate in 185 1. William 
 Bigler was being groomed for the nomination for the governor- 
 
BUSINESS AND POLITICS 115 
 
 ship in 1 85 1. Reports made to him by his friends in various 
 parts of the state serve as a barometer of feeling not only to- 
 wards his candidacy but also towards Cameron. By the summer 
 of 1850, General Cameron was very actively campaigning and 
 it was reported from Pittsburgh that he was meeting with much 
 encouragement. George P. Hamilton, a regular Democrat, re- 
 gretted this situation and said he "would prefer seeing the Demo- 
 cratic party disbanded and Whig will prevail throughout the 
 whole country than the election of Simon Cameron to the U. S. 
 Senate." He felt that Cameron had struck at the very heart of 
 the Democratic political organization and had done more to 
 prostrate the party than its open and avowed enemies had done. 17 
 From Philadelphia, it was reported that Cameron and the Whig 
 governor, Johnston, had made an alliance, offensive and de- 
 fensive, each to assist the other for the senatorship, as circum- 
 stances might require. 18 The writer of this report was also a 
 Democrat. He believed that the election of a Senator at the 
 coming session would prove very interesting. These cases serve 
 to illustrate the intensity of hostile feeling against Cameron that 
 existed in his own party and indicate that he was tackling a 
 task with the odds against him. 
 
 Several of the aspirants for the senatorship were in Harris- 
 burg a week or more prior to the election. Although the elec- 
 tion was close at hand the race for the Democratic nomination 
 seemed to be wide open. E. A. Penniman, a Democratic mem- 
 ber of the legislature, declared he had not made up his mind 
 for whom he would vote, but that he would not support Cam- 
 eron in the caucus. 19 William J. Hemphill observed that Cam- 
 eron "is here and is very industrious and entertains a great deal 
 of company and some of his friends think that he will be 
 nominated but I think not." 20 
 
 Cameron's friends were looking after his interests and making 
 every effort to gain votes for him. The Berks County Demo- 
 crats had passed a resolution instructing their members of the 
 legislature not to vote for General Cameron. One week prior 
 to the election the Berks County Democrats held another meet- 
 ing at the court house. The resolution was reconsidered and 
 voted down. The members of the legislature were thus by im- 
 plication instructed to vote for Cameron. 21 
 
n6 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Penniman's analysis of the situation made two days before 
 the Democratic caucus listed five contenders to be reckoned 
 with: Jeremiah S. Black, Henry D. Foster, Richard Brodhead, 
 Simon Cameron, and George W. Woodward. Black, he be- 
 lieved, was out of the question. Foster and Brodhead were the 
 strongest candidates, with the edge in favor of Brodhead; Cam- 
 eron, he believed, preferred Brodhead if he himself could not 
 obtain the nomination. Woodward's strength would grow if 
 the balloting were prolonged. Penniman felt that if the com- 
 bined support of Black, Foster, and Cameron could be thrown 
 to Brodhead, he could easily be elected and the unity of the 
 party preserved." 
 
 The caucus of the Democratic members of the legislature was 
 held on Monday, January thirteenth. It required twelve bal- 
 lots to select a nominee. On this ballot Richard Brodhead re- 
 ceived thirty-four votes to twenty-four for Judge George W. 
 Woodward, and nine votes were scattered among the other 
 candidates.- 3 On the following day, the legislature, assembled 
 in joint convention, elected Brodhead United States Senator 
 by the whole Democratic vote. 24 
 
 During the years 1850 to 1852 there were three political mat- 
 ters which drew the particular attention of General Cameron: 
 the choice of a United States Senator, the nomination and 
 election of a governor, and the choice of a presidential candi- 
 date for 1852. The first of these matters was settled in January, 
 1 85 1. The second and third were very closely related, in that at 
 many of the local conventions which backed one or another of 
 the gubernatorial candidates there were also resolutions passed 
 favoring the support of particular presidential aspirants. 
 
 Although the nominating and electing of a governor for 
 Pennsylvania would not take place until 1851, the Democrats 
 were active in lining up voters and obtaining pledged support 
 at least a year earlier. Governor William F. Johnston was a 
 Whig and would lead his party for re-election. The Democrats 
 were determined to regain control of the state in 1851. The 
 regular branch of the Democrats backed William Bigler, while 
 Colonel Samuel W. Black of Allegheny received the pre-con- 
 vention support of the other wing of the party. 
 
 The Bigler Papers mirror the position of Cameron in this 
 
BUSINESS AND POLITICS 117 
 
 campaign. The correspondence recevied by Bigler shows almost 
 every shade of feeling towards Cameron, with the major por- 
 tion of the writers agreed that Cameron was decidedly un- 
 friendly towards Bigler. Samuel S. Bigler, in a four-page, close- 
 ly-written letter to his brother, William, expressed very strong- 
 ly his conviction that Cameron was not Bigler's friend, pre- 
 senting as evidence for this conclusion Cameron's opposition 
 to the move to instruct the Dauphin County delegates for Big- 
 ler.-"' George Sanderson of Lancaster declared that Cameron was 
 hostile to Bigler 's nomination and, as an out-and-out friend of 
 Black, would leave nothing undone that he could do to defeat 
 him. On the other hand, A. Boyd Hamilton of Clearfield thought 
 that Cameron feared Black and every prominent man in the 
 state. He suspected that Cameron's opposition to Bigler existed 
 because he had never forgiven Bigler for his strong support of 
 George W. Woodward in the senatorial election of March, 
 1845.* 1 
 
 J. Glancy Jones of Reading felt that it would be fatal to 
 Bigler if Cameron declared for him. He believed that Bigler 
 had a large body of personal friends in the regular wing of the 
 party which could not be taken away from him — what he 
 needed was to bring in the radical wing in a body and that 
 would be secured by Cameron's going against him.- 7 Stephen 
 Weston of Northumberland attributed the failure of his county 
 to pass a resolution to instruct their delegate for Bigler to the 
 fact that Cameron, "that Bird of evil omen," had been through 
 the county a few days before the delegates' meeting and that 
 the Cameron men of Northumberland and Sunbury controlled 
 the meeting. William Wilson, "one of Simon's pliant tools," 
 was mainly instrumental in defeating the resolution. 28 He com- 
 mented also on the low state of the Democratic Party in North- 
 umberland County, reporting that at the county delegates' 
 meeting they had even voted down a resolution that the rep- 
 resentative of Northumberland in the legislature be instructed 
 to support by his vote the nominee for the United States Senate 
 who should be selected by the Democratic caucus. Four months 
 before the nominating convention Thomas Tyler of Philadel- 
 phia reported that Bigler had all the delegates from his county 
 and that there was not "a Cameron man or a fishy Democrat 
 
n8 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 in the whole number." 29 He himself thought well of Cameron 
 but felt that most of his friends in his locality were rascals, and 
 declared that "the trouble is Cameron has been shamefully led 
 by these vile men." 
 
 In contrast to the above, G. R. Long of Halifax wrote to 
 Bigler of "our kind and mutual friend, General Cameron," 
 stating: "I love Gen'l C. as I love myself, and will go to any 
 length or distance for him." 30 Cameron had so many friends in 
 Dauphin County that Long was confident that anything Cam- 
 eron wished could easily be carried. A. Ebough of York County 
 wrote that the friends of General Cameron in his county would 
 be found to be among the warmest of Bigler's supporters. He 
 believed that the course of the Bigler representatives in regard 
 to the recent election of United States Senator would have the 
 effect of reconciling the Cameron party and inducing them to 
 give Bigler their full and undivided support. 31 The Cameron 
 forces were important since they had control of a number of 
 newspapers throughout the state, including one of the leading 
 papers at the Capital; and during the campaign gained control 
 of others. 32 
 
 In this period of strong political feeling within the Demo- 
 cratic Party Cameron played a shrewd game of politics. Letters 
 to Bigler illustrate the intensity of passion in regard to Camer- 
 on, in its various stages pro and con. Cameron desired the res- 
 toration of the Democratic Party to the control of the execu- 
 tive branch of the government, and believed that Bigler was 
 the strongest man the party could support for that purpose. 
 Being cognizant of the ill-feeling towards himself within the 
 party, he revealed his purposes and plans to but few, and in 
 these cases to persons who would report them to Bigler. F. W. 
 Hughes of Pottsville, a Bigler adherent, met General Cameron 
 while he was in Washington. They talked very freely about 
 Bigler's candidacy for the governorship. Cameron explained the 
 proceedings of the Dauphin County meeting in a manner con- 
 sistent with support of Bigler and explained the opposition to 
 the instruction of delegates on the ground of his lack of respect 
 for the person who proposed them. He said that he had nothing 
 to gain by leaving Bigler and that he had no disposition to do 
 so. He requested Hughes to say to Bigler that he expected to 
 
BUSINESS AND POLITICS 119 
 
 support him but that at the same time he thought it best for 
 both Bigler and himself that matters should remain in public 
 estimation just as they were. Hughes thought that Bigler would 
 not dissent from this idea. 33 Samuel S. Bigler's earlier report of 
 the Dauphin County meeting to his brother declared that Gen- 
 eral Cameron had argued that he was friendly to Colonel Bigler 
 and thought highly of him but that instructions were premature. 
 However, the report indicates that its writer believed this was 
 just a front put on by Cameron to fool the people and that he 
 was utterly insincere. 34 
 
 In the latter part of August, 1850, Bigler wrote to his uncle, 
 William Dock, of Harrisburg, requesting him to have an inter- 
 view with General Cameron and to endeavor to obtain his sup- 
 port for him in the gubernatorial contest. Dock was not to let 
 Cameron know that he had sought him out for the interview. 
 Dock agreed to carry out the mission, which he felt could 
 easily be arranged because of his fairly intimate acquaintance 
 with Cameron. 35 Dock and his wife rode to Middletown os- 
 tensibly to visit her relatives, and while in town he strolled into 
 the bank where he "accidentally" met his friend. Their con- 
 versation was reported by letter the next day to Bigler. 36 Cam- 
 eron knew Dock and undoubtedly knew that Bigler was his 
 nephew. He could hardly have been hoodwinked by the sub- 
 terfuge of Dock. Dock was most deeply interested in the out- 
 come of the campaign, and felt that it would not do for his 
 two friends, Bigler and Cameron, not to understand each other 
 correctly. Bigler, he knew, was the friend of Cameron and 
 esteemed him highly. Cameron reciprocated this sentiment. 
 Cameron asked Dock to write to Bigler that he was his friend 
 and would assist in having him nominated. The Dauphin County 
 delegates, although not instructed for Bigler, should and would 
 at the Reading Convention vote for him, and York County like- 
 wise. The banker-politician also talked as if Schuylkill County 
 would elect Bigler delegates at his personal request. He 
 expressed the same opinion to Dock that he had expressed to 
 Hughes, that for Bigler's interests it would be better that they 
 maintain the relations which the public accepted, meaning that 
 should Cameron come out openly for Bigler then his enemies 
 would turn against Bigler and hazard his nomination. Dock as- 
 
no SIMON CAMERON 
 
 sured Bigler that Cameron was all right. He had recently talked 
 with James M. Anderson of York and, before he had said a 
 word about General Cameron, Anderson had told him that in 
 York Cameron's friends were all Bigler's friends and Bigler's 
 friends were Cameron's friends. 
 
 The Democratic State Convention met in Reading on June 4, 
 1 85 1, and completed its work the next day. The Buchanan men, 
 supporters of Bigler, organized the convention. Colonel Samuel 
 W. Black was the opponent of Bigler for the nomination. It 
 was generally supposed by the regular Democrats that he had 
 the backing of Cameron and that Cameron would leave nothing 
 undone to obtain his nomination. 37 However, just before the 
 nominations, Black had a letter read to the convention in which 
 he withdrew from the contest. William Bigler was then unani- 
 mously nominated for governor. He was introduced and de- 
 livered a speech before the convention. Commenting editorially 
 on the candidate and the convention, the New York Tribune, 
 a Whig paper, believed Bigler "the strongest man his party has 
 run for several years." Bigler stood on the ground of zealous 
 adherence to the entire compromise policy of the federal gov- 
 ernment, and the convention passed resolutions of the most de- 
 cided stamp in its favor. 38 The Washington Union, at the na- 
 tional Capital, considered the unanimity displayed at Reading 
 "cheering to the hopes of democracy not only in Pennsylvania, 
 but throughout the Union." 39 
 
 The Whig State Convention was held on June twenty-fourth 
 in Lancaster. It assembled in the court house, which was en- 
 tirely inadequate as to room and other facilities. As was ex- 
 pected, Governor William F. Johnston was renominated unani- 
 mously by acclamation. The convention passed numerous res- 
 olutions, among them some which strongly asserted the doc- 
 trine of protection of American labor. The New York Tribune 
 declared that the welfare of Pennsylvania was thoroughly iden- 
 tified with the triumph of Whig policy; that industry lay pros- 
 trate and suffering from an anti-American tariff; and that on 
 the occasion of such an election as this it must renew in the 
 strongest terms the proclamation of fidelity to that Whig doc- 
 trine. 40 About three weeks earlier the Whigs had held a local 
 convention in Pittsburgh in which they renominated Johnston 
 
BUSINESS AND POLITICS 121 
 
 and passed resolutions favoring a protective tariff and opposing 
 the Fugitive Slave Law. The Tribune at that time asserted that 
 Johnston stood on grounds entirely antagonistic to the Demo- 
 cratic stand, that the Whigs were out-and-out supporters of 
 Free-Soil and stood against the present mode of slave-catching. 
 The Tribune said further in reference to slavery: 
 
 The Governor himself, at the last session, refused his approval to a bill 
 repealing the law above mentioned [law of March 3, 1849, forbidding 
 use of the jails of the commonwealth to the slave-catchers of the Fed- 
 eral Government] with reference to the jails. Pennsylvania, they say, 
 having long since abolished slavery herself, is hostile to its extension or 
 to any interference with it by her State officers. 41 
 
 The campaign during the summer and fall of 1851 was not 
 particularly different from earlier ones in Pennsylvania. Cam- 
 eron accepted the convention's choice, but there was suspicion 
 and the fiction of the bitterness of Cameron's feeling for Big- 
 ler was maintained during that period. The election took place 
 on October 14, 1851, and resulted in a victory for Bigler, who 
 received 186,499 t0 178,030 for Johnston. 42 Buchanan wrote a 
 letter of congratulation to Bigler on his victory and commented 
 at some length on Cameron. He declared that Cameron's treason 
 had given Bigler a Whig senate. A Dr. Heck, the Democratic 
 candidate in Cameron's district, was defeated by John C. Kunkel 
 of Harrisburg. The next legislature would have seventeen 
 Whigs to sixteen Democrats in the senate. Buchanan felt that 
 Cameron had "at length done a deed which must forever exclude 
 him from the rank of the Democratic party," and that the party 
 throughout his own county would now move in strong column 
 against him. 43 It is true that Dauphin County returned a Whig 
 to the senate in 1851. It is true also that this county had given 
 Whig returns for several years past. It must be noted, also, that 
 the Democrats gained a small percentage in the Dauphin Coun- 
 ty vote of 1 85 1 over that of three years earlier. 44 Therefore, 
 Buchanan's charge that Cameron was responsible for the elec- 
 tion of a Whig in his county is not justifiable. 
 
 Cameron wrote to Bigler on the same day as did Buchanan. 
 He declared to Bigler: "I am sincerely rejoiced at your success." 
 The contents of this letter indicate that he and Bigler had been, 
 
i22 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 whether directly or not, in close communication with each 
 other during the campaign. Concerning the defeat of Dr. Heck, 
 Cameron wrote that he was beaten by the folly of some of his 
 own zealous friends around Harrisburg, who had imported to 
 the canal project some worthless pipe-layers. Cameron declared 
 that: 
 
 the rascals were, on the day of the election bought to oppose Heck. I 
 worked from noon till night as I never have worked on the ground, but 
 we were largely beaten with Heck while you had a large vote in this 
 and the adjoining district, the scene of the pipe laying. 45 
 
 Cameron besought Bigler to write immediately to his brother, 
 Samuel Bigler, and to William Dock to make them operate on 
 the Bigler friends and to prevent a renewal of the fight in 
 Dauphin County. A war at the beginning of his administration 
 which might last for years would be harmful, yet it was about 
 a matter in which Bigler could feel no interest. Cameron be- 
 lieved it would all be stopped if Bigler would but say the word 
 in time. He assured Bigler that nevertheless "we can beat them, 
 and we will if they compel me to go into it, but I do not want 
 the trouble." 46 
 
 In November Cameron wrote to the governor-elect that he 
 had heard much about proposed persons to be appointed as his 
 secretary of state. Some said that the office would go to James 
 Campbell; others said it would go to George W. Woodward. 
 Cameron had "too much confidence in your good sense to sup- 
 pose you will treat yourself with either of them." 47 A month 
 later Colonel James Burnside wrote to Bigler that Cameron 
 said it was not his business to interfere with his appointment of 
 cabinet officers, and that if Bigler was satisfied that Judge James 
 Campbell should be attorney-general he would not complain, 
 provided F. W. Hughes should be made secretary. He closed 
 with the statement that General Cameron seemed to desire Big- 
 ler's future promotion and thought his position would secure it 
 if he did not make a false step. This was a sentiment to which 
 Burnside also subscribed. 48 Neither Campbell nor Hughes was 
 among those on the cabinet when the membership of that body 
 was announced at Bigler's inauguration in January. Despite 
 acerbity of feeling between the wings of the Democratic Party 
 
BUSINESS AND POLITICS 123 
 
 of Pennsylvania in 1850 and 1851, Bigler and Cameron, if in- 
 deed they did not bear any strong affinity for one another, at 
 least understood each other. 
 
 Governor Bigler looked upon the Compromise of 1850 as an 
 honest attempt to settle the difference between the North and 
 the South and avert civil strife. He therefore favored Pennsyl- 
 vania's enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act and other legis- 
 lation relative to slavery. In his inaugural address he requested 
 the repeal of the act which forbade the use of the jails of the 
 commonwealth for the detention of fugitive slaves. The legisla- 
 ture complied with this request and Pennsylvania was again in 
 accord with the federal government. The stain of nullification, 
 within the statute, caused by acts of the last state administra- 
 tion, was removed. 49 
 
 The third matter which drew the attention of Cameron in 
 this period was the choice of a presidential candidate for 1852. 
 Interest in this centers particularly in the feud which had de- 
 veloped between Cameron and Buchanan. These two, intimate 
 political friends and allies for two and one-half decades, follow- 
 ed by estrangement and only occasional co-operation during 
 Polk's administration, had completely severed their political al- 
 liance bv 1850. Although Buchanan was looked upon as Penn- 
 sylvania's favorite son for the nomination in 1852, Cameron 
 labored to turn the sentiment in favor of Lewis Cass, Buchanan's 
 leading competitor. Their warfare soon degenerated to the stage 
 of calling each other names. Buchanan was referring to Cameron 
 as a "scamp," and "unprincipled rascal," and an "arch intriguer," 
 and Buchanan's friend William R. King of Alabama was call- 
 ing Cameron an "unprincipled intriguing fellow." 50 Cameron 
 considered Buchanan an "old political hack" so fallen that he 
 could not carry a county and so anxious for adulation that he 
 would accept it from any source. 51 This mutual feeling of hos- 
 tility between Cameron and Buchanan was brought before the 
 public time and time again by the newspapers. 
 
 In A4arch of 1850 Cameron called upon Senator Jefferson 
 Davis in Washington and produced an old newspaper of 1820 
 to show him that Buchanan was against slavery and against the 
 admission of any more slave-holding states. It was also reported 
 in Washington that Buchanan recoiled from the proposition to 
 
i2 4 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 extend the Missouri Compromise line in 1848 with the admis- 
 sion of the right to take slaves into the territory south of that 
 line. Hence Buchanan was unfavorably compared with Cass, 
 who had, it was reported, said to friends that he would go thus 
 far. 52 
 
 All through Bigler's campaign for the nomination for the 
 governorship, Cameron worked against Buchanan by having 
 resolutions in favor of Cass slipped in on the heels of many 
 county meetings. The Pennsylvanian, a leading Democratic 
 newspaper published by John W. Forney, and with Buchanan 
 allegiance, refused to print the resolutions of some of the local 
 conventions because it could not notice a part without the 
 whole — and the Cass resolutions it would not publish. Forney 
 was friendly to Bigler but considered the Cass resolutions a 
 Cameron movement against Buchanan, and refused publication. 
 J. Glancy Jones expected to receive the congressional nomina- 
 tion, with election practically assured; and since Forney looked 
 to him for his next chance for the clerkship of the House of 
 Representatives, he assured Bigler that after his nomination he 
 could do pretty much as he pleased with the Fennsylvanian. m 
 George P. Hamilton of Pittsburgh regretted to see that Cam- 
 eron was taking advantage of Bigler's popularity "to carry reso- 
 lutions in favor of General Cass for the Presidency, and to crush 
 Mr. Buchanan." Thus far in nearly every county where reso- 
 lutions had been passed in Bigler's favor there had also been an 
 expression in favor of General Cass. This coincidence was at- 
 tracting public attention, and some of Bigler's enemies were 
 pointing to it as evidence of collusion between Cass, Cameron, 
 and Bigler. Hamilton could not accept this view for he had al- 
 ways regarded Bigler as the devoted and political friend of Bu- 
 chanan. 54 Alexander B. Cummings observed to Bigler that he 
 would perceive from the New York Times that the war be- 
 tween Buchanan and Cameron had assumed a personal nature 
 and no one could tell where it would end. 55 
 
 A month before the Reading Convention, Judge Luther Kid- 
 der wrote to Buchanan that he felt that the presidential ques- 
 tion should be kept out of the convention. It would operate as 
 a firebrand at that time, when perfect union and harmony were 
 so much to be desired. He believed that Cass had lost ground 
 
BUSINESS AND POLITICS 125 
 
 in Pennsylvania during the last few months and that the way 
 would be clear for Buchanan and his success certain if he would 
 take the same pains for a year to come that he had during the 
 last few months to soothe asperities. Many Democrats regretted 
 that Buchanan and Cameron were not friends. Living so near 
 one another, and having so many common interests, it was 
 worse than idle for them to be enemies. Both were stockholders 
 in Pennsylvania banks and railroads, and in the coal and iron 
 industries. Both were members of the Democratic Party and 
 sought to advance the interests of the party; yet they were 
 rivals for power and the control of the Pennsylvania Democ- 
 racy. Their policies conflicted in reference to the tariff issue, 
 Buchanan supporting a low-tarifT policy. Kidder believed that 
 if the Fennsylvanian would cease to attack Cameron (which 
 Cameron charged to Buchanan) an understanding might be 
 brought about between them, and offered his services to ac- 
 complish this object. 56 Buchanan replied that such an object 
 would be difficult, almost impossible to accomplish. He de- 
 clared that Cameron had made war upon him openly, without 
 any cause, and he expected opposition to the end. He disclaimed 
 any responsibility for the Fennsylvaniarfs attacks upon Cam- 
 eron but in a measure gave them his approbation. He appre- 
 ciated Kidder's kind offer of interposition but believed it could 
 produce no good effect. 57 
 
 The New York Tribune noted, as the Reading Convention 
 was assembling, that there was too much acerbity between the 
 different wings of the Democratic Party and that bitter words 
 were being exchanged between the friends of Cass and those of 
 Buchanan. It believed great efforts would be made to stave off 
 any expression of opinion on the presidential question. 58 The 
 Cincinnati Gazette, on the other hand, thought that, while the 
 expressed object of the convention was to nominate a governor, 
 the real bone of contention was the position of Pennsylvania 
 on candidates for the coming Democratic nomination for presi- 
 dent. 59 As to whether Cass or Buchanan would be chosen by 
 the Democrats, the Gazette thought it would be of no conse- 
 quence if the Whigs were awake. Though the friends of Cass 
 in Pennsylvania were old tacticians, Buchanan had the numerical 
 strength to win in the state convention. The latter succeeded 
 
iz6 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 in organizing the Reading Convention and also the Harrisburg 
 Convention to nominate candidates for judge, a week later. The 
 Reading Convention adjourned without a direct expression of 
 its presidential preference. 60 
 
 As the campaign progressed during the summer, the Cass 
 papers in Pennsylvania, the Keystone, the Lancastrian, and 
 others, published old speeches of Buchanan which were intend- 
 ed to present him as out of harmony with the will and interests 
 of the Democratic voters. 61 The Lancaster Intelligencer and 
 Journal, a Buchanan paper, at the same time defended Buchanan, 
 and in an article published on July 8, 1851, condemned the at- 
 tacks being made upon him by Cameron papers. 62 When the 
 Democratic committee of Westmoreland County recommend- 
 ed Buchanan for the presidency, local meetings denounced 
 the committee's action as unauthorized. In Dauphin County, 
 Cameron's home, Cass was nominated by the Democratic Coun- 
 ty Convention by a vote of fifty-three to three. 63 
 
 Buchanan seemed fairly confident that Cameron would not 
 be able, in the end, to prevent him from obtaining the support 
 of the Pennsylvania Democrats. He was mortified, however, 
 that Cameron and his faction were using the show of opposition 
 to him in Pennsylvania to try to convince other friendly states 
 that he could not carry his own state if nominated. It also vexed 
 him greatly as he saw certain persons, such as Senator Brod- 
 head, whom he had regarded as his own personal and devoted 
 friend, won over by Cameron and made bitterly hostile to him. 64 
 He felt, after the results of the October ( 185 1 ) elections were 
 known, that Cass would be beaten by a large majority in Penn- 
 sylvania in 1852 by any Whig nominee. Judge James Campbell, 
 a Catholic, had been a candidate for the state supreme court in 
 1 85 1. Buchanan charged that he was defeated by fraud, that the 
 special friends of Cass, "Cameron, the Cummingses, and all that 
 corrupt clique," sent circulars over the whole state to clergymen 
 and others for the purpose of exciting prejudices against popery. 
 The Catholic Democrats were deeply wounded by this religi- 
 ous persecution and Buchanan doubted whether they could ever 
 be rallied as a whole for any Democratic candidate, and he felt 
 it entirely impossible in regard to Cass, who was "openly and 
 perseveringly sustained by Cameron and his clique." 65 Buchan- 
 
BUSINESS AND POLITICS 127 
 
 an estimated the Democratic Catholic vote in Pennsylvania at 
 twenty-five thousand, and since no election in the recent history 
 of the state had been carried by more than half that number 
 this was an element which could not be neglected. 
 
 There seems to be no evidence to support Buchanan's charge 
 that Cameron was guilty of responsibility for sending out cir- 
 culars for the purpose of exciting prejudices against popery in 
 the election of 1851. The evidence found points to the con- 
 trary. Cameron's correspondence shows him to have been a 
 man of deep religious feeling and in such matters a man of great 
 tolerance. Further, Cameron was certainly too shrewd a politi- 
 cian to risk the alienation of a huge block of voters. As a matter 
 of fact he did not lose Catholic support as undoubtedly would 
 have been true had Buchanan's charges been correct. As Cam- 
 eron and his followers looked forward to the next senatorial 
 election, James Collan informed him that John C. Dunn, chief 
 clerk in the post office at Pittsburgh, a Roman Catholic, was his 
 friend and would be a power for him in the Catholic group. 66 
 Dunn's letters show him to be a partisan of Cameron, reporting 
 to him on political conditions in the Pittsburgh area and ad- 
 vising as to the best methods of handling certain individuals 
 with reference to gaining support and votes for the senatorship. 67 
 
 An interesting episode in the struggle between the Cassites 
 and the Buchananites occurred at a meeting of the Philadelphia 
 Democratic County Convention. The convention assembled in 
 Northern Liberty Hall, February fifth, with Alderman Peter 
 Rambo presiding. After electing delegates to the Baltimore Con- 
 vention, a resolution was offered instructing them to vote in the 
 state convention for Lewis Cass. An amendment was introduced 
 substituting James Buchanan's name for that of Cass. The chair 
 put the vote on the amendment viva voce, and declared it car- 
 ried; and the resolution, as amended, quickly carried in similar 
 manner. Then ensued a scene of great confusion, in the midst 
 of which the question of adjournment was put, and also pro- 
 nounced carried. The officers of the convention then retreated 
 via a back window. In the efforts of the Cassites to haul back the 
 presiding officer to have the questions regularly voted on, they 
 tore off a part of his coat. Subsequently the majority (it was 
 said) of the convention re-organized with William Byerly in 
 
i28 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 the chair, and the Cass resolution was unanimously adopted. It 
 was explained that the members of the convention, when elected, 
 were principally Buchananites but many had changed their 
 views in opposition to Pennsylvania's favorite son because of 
 dissatisfaction at the Bigler appointments. 68 
 
 The Democratic State Convention assembled in Harrisburg 
 on March fourth with the Cass and Buchanan elements each 
 determined to advance the cause of its favorite. During the 
 evening session of the first day, the convention adopted a reso- 
 lution that the chairman appoint a committee to select a dele- 
 gation to the national convention, subject to the approval of 
 this convention. This called forth a strong protest from the 
 Cass men who were in the minority. The protest was presented 
 by John Scott of Huntingdon, and in part read as follows: 
 
 We solemnly protest against the resolution just adopted, as a wanton 
 disfranchisement of Congressional Districts which we in whole or in 
 part represent. We denounce it as a flagrant usurpation of power — as 
 a desperate alternative resorted to by a tyrannical majority to manacle 
 and silence a large minority in this Convention upon a vital question — 
 it is a trampling under foot of a usage sanctioned by the action of the 
 Democratic party in its Conventions for the past 17 years — it is not 
 only a violation of usage but it is a sacrifice for a temporary purpose 
 of a cardinal Democratic Principle. 69 
 
 The next day Hirst, from the committee appointed for that pur- 
 pose, reported the names of fifty-four delegates to represent the 
 state in the national convention at Baltimore, and also twenty- 
 seven presidential electors. Delegates from four Cass districts 
 proposed to the convention the names of gentlemen from their 
 respective districts 70 as delegates and electors. The report pre- 
 sented by Hirst was adopted by ninety-seven yeas to three nays. 
 About thirty delegates declined to vote on the question on the 
 ground that the proceeding was in violation of party usage and 
 an act of gross injustice to the minority. 71 Resolutions for sup- 
 port of Buchanan and requiring pledges to that end from each 
 delegate and elector were finally adopted — the Cass men fight- 
 ing most desperately up to the last moment. 72 The Tribune ob- 
 served that Buchanan had carried his state by force, and that 
 the achievement was not received very pleasantly by his an- 
 tagonists within the party. 
 
BUSINESS AND POLITICS 129 
 
 Thus Cameron was worsted, by the Buchanan forces, in his 
 efforts to gain the Pennsylvania delegation for Cass. He had 
 presented stubborn opposition but could not command a ma- 
 jority. Notwithstanding the action of the convention in choos- 
 ing Buchanan delegates, there were some of the Cameron news- 
 papers, the Pottsville Emporium and Press, the Lancastrian, the 
 Keystone, and others, which were for some time as firm as ever 
 in their advocacy of Cass. 
 
 In 1850 measures were passed by Congress to compromise the 
 major issues between the North and the South. Leaders through- 
 out the country deluded themselves into thinking that all mat- 
 ters of differences had been settled, or at least principles es- 
 tablished upon which all future questions would be decided. 
 They believed that the people would regard a reopening of 
 agitation between the sections as meddlesome and unpatriotic. 
 
 In the light of the compromise measures, the Democratic 
 Party occupied a more favored position in 1852 than did the 
 Whig Party. They had quite generally acquiesced in the set- 
 tlement and would go into the election a united party if a can- 
 didate could be found who would not be objectionable to either 
 branch of the party. Lewis Cass (defeated in 1848), James Bu- 
 chanan, Stephen A. Douglas, and William L. Marcy appeared 
 as the leading candidates prior to the national convention. 73 
 
 The Whigs were far worse off than the Democrats. They 
 were likely to lose some of the votes of the antislavery element 
 that had frequently supported them in the past. The possibility 
 of anything like a hearty union of the Whigs seemed remote 
 to careful students of the situation. Daniel Webster was un- 
 doubtedly their greatest statesman, but after his Seventh of 
 March Speech he was unacceptable to that wing of the party 
 which regarded the compromise measures of 1850 with abhor- 
 rence. On the other hand, the Southern wing of the party re- 
 garded acceptance of these measures as a basic qualification for 
 a candidate. President Millard Fillmore had stood by the South 
 during the passage of these measures and it would seem that he 
 was the logical candidate. One other candidate, General Win- 
 field Scott, loomed large before the convention. No one knew 
 what was his position on the "compromises," and even during 
 
1 3 o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 the convention a letter from him was read which left his posi- 
 tion in the dark. 74 
 
 The weather was extremely hot on Monday, May thirty-first, 
 as immense crowds poured into Baltimore for the Democratic 
 National Convention which would assemble the next day. Ho- 
 tels and boarding-houses were crowded to overflowing, and 
 many private citizens of the Democratic faith threw open their 
 doors to accommodate their friends. From the throngs in the 
 streets, it would seem that the people had all turned out in cele- 
 bration of a national holiday. Congress had recessed and there 
 was a general hegira of politicians, great and small, from Wash- 
 ington to Baltimore. In the convention hall palm-leaf fans and 
 iced-water were liberally supplied in an effort to gain some re- 
 lief from the oppressive heat. 75 
 
 The interests of General Cass in the convention were com- 
 mitted to the hands of Cameron, Daniel S. Dickinson of New 
 York, and Jesse D. Bright of Indiana. He ran stronger than any 
 of the other leading candidates. The correspondent of the New 
 York Tribune deemed the adoption of the two-thirds rule to be 
 fatal to Cass, 76 and it proved too much for all whose names were 
 before the convention. The balloting extended over three days, 
 June third to fifth, with the followers of Cass and Buchanan in 
 a deadlock. After the first day Buchanan thought it highly im- 
 probable that he could receive the nomination. 77 On the after- 
 noon of the third day some states went to Franklin Pierce of 
 New Hampshire. This started a stampede in his favor which 
 gave him the nomination on the forty-ninth ballot by an almost 
 
 unanimous vote. 78 
 
 The Whig National Convention met about ten days later in 
 the same auditorium. The voting for a presidential nominee was 
 prolonged through fifty-three ballots and finally resulted in the 
 choice of General Winfield Scott. 79 
 
 Both parties included "finality" planks in their platforms and 
 thus endeavored to silence the slavery question as a campaign 
 issue. 80 The unity within the Democratic Party on this question 
 was fairly complete, while it met with some opposition among 
 the Whigs. Seventy free-state delegates, who steadily voted for 
 General Scott in the convention, recorded their votes against 
 the "finality" plank, and many Whig newspapers in the North 
 
BUSINESS AND POLITICS 131 
 
 refused to be bound by it. 81 The presidential campaign was the 
 mildest the country had witnessed in more than a decade. It was 
 lacking in the spectacular as to both issues and candidates. 
 
 Late in August, the Pennsylvania Democrats held a conven- 
 tion to nominate a candidate for canal commissioner in place of 
 William Searight, their recently deceased candidate. They chose 
 General William Hopkins of Washington County, who had 
 gained notoriety years before as speaker of the house during 
 the "Buckshot War." At the same convention, George W. 
 Woodward, candidate in 1845 for United States Senator, was 
 unanimously nominated for the supreme bench. 82 
 
 Cameron believed that the October state election would re- 
 veal the outcome of the presidential contest in Pennsylvania. 
 He hoped that the whole ticket would be elected, "including 
 Woodward," the organization candidate whom he had defeated 
 in 1845. While he thought the state would go Democratic, he 
 hoped that every Democrat would work as if the result de- 
 pended upon his own efforts. 83 Hopkins and Woodward each 
 won over their Whig opponents by almost twenty thousand 
 majority. The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin remarked that the 
 total state vote was smaller than any cast since 1848 and only 
 a little larger than the presidential vote of 1844. It stated that 
 the election in November would doubtless call out a much 
 heavier one. 84 
 
 Neither the Democrats nor the Whigs presented a strong 
 candidate for the presidency and both parties stood on the 
 same ground in regard to the slavery issue; therefore the voters 
 who were inclined to be independent had an opportunity to de- 
 cide upon and express a preference for policies on the basis of 
 the past records of the two parties. 85 The Whigs had stood for 
 a protective tariff, the Democrats for a tariff for revenue with 
 only incidental protection. The Whigs favored a United States 
 Bank; the Democrats opposed it. The former advocated Henry 
 Clay's plan for the distribution of the proceeds from the sale 
 of public lands; the latter rejected the plan. In state constitution- 
 al conventions of this period the Whigs tried to keep the suffrage 
 restricted; the Democrats favored a broadening of the fran- 
 chise. All such matters were pondered by the independent vot- 
 ing element in the presidential contest of 1852. The Barnburn- 
 
1 32 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 ers, who had formed a third party in 1 848, had returned to the 
 Democratic fold before the 1852 election, and insured New 
 York to Pierce. 
 
 The result of the November election was a crushing defeat 
 of the Whigs both in the popular and in the electoral vote. 
 Scott carried but four states with an electoral vote of forty-two, 
 while Pierce won twenty-seven states with an electoral vote of 
 two hundred fifty-four. 86 Pennsylvania went to Pierce by al- 
 most twenty thousand over Scott. The Democrats showed a 
 gain in the state of more than twenty-seven thousand over the 
 1848 figures, while the Whigs lost almost six thousand for the 
 same period. Cameron's home county, Dauphin, went to Scott 
 by a thousand majority. 87 
 
 A month after the election, Pierce wrote to Buchanan re- 
 questing advice on the formation of his Cabinet. 88 In reply Bu- 
 chanan stated his general views and commented rather pointed- 
 ly on certain Pennsylvania Democrats. He characterized Cam- 
 eron and his leaders as persons who had "always been disor- 
 ganizes whenever their personal interests came in conflict with 
 the success of the party." Buchanan felt very deeply the attacks 
 which they had made on him during the past two or three 
 years. He commended in most favorable terms Judge James 
 Campbell and ex-Governor David R. Porter. 89 Judge Campbell 
 was appointed postmaster-general in A4arch, 1853, and a few 
 months later Buchanan was appointed minister to Great Britain. 
 The Cameron organization had been strongly opposed to Camp- 
 bell when he was a candidate in 1851 for the supreme bench in 
 Pennsylvania, and had been charged by Buchanan with accom- 
 plishing his defeat through an appeal to religious prejudice. As 
 above indicated his charges against Cameron were unjustified. 90 
 The press declared that Campbell, a Catholic, was chosen post- 
 master-general in spite of bitter opposition from his own state. 
 The supposition was that he was chosen chiefly on account of 
 his religious opinions, and in order to clear the President's 
 "skirts" of anti-Catholic charges brought against him during the 
 campaign. 91 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 FINAL BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS 
 
 CAMERON was well satisfied with the results of the presi- 
 dential contest in 1852. He looked forward to a return to 
 the United States Senate, though Pennsylvania was not due to 
 elect another Senator before the early months of 1855. In the 
 meantime, Cameron would devote his energies to the building 
 of his political fences: seeking appointments, federal and state, 
 for his friends and associates; winning the support of key per- 
 sons from the camp of his opponents; performing little favors 
 here and there which would put individuals under friendly 
 obligations to him; and doing the many other things within the 
 repertoire of an adroit and shrewd politician. 
 
 In the matter of federal appointments in Pennsylvania, Cam- 
 eron frequently took cases directly to the President. He recom- 
 mended the choice of Judge Nimrod Strickland for the office 
 of director of the mint at Philadelphia. He felt that Judge 
 Strickland's appointment would be a move towards harmon- 
 izing the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania and would be ac- 
 ceptable to the whole party, since Strickland had not created 
 enemies by warmly advocating the nomination of either Cass 
 or Buchanan in the recent contest for the presidency. 1 
 
 Cameron had far greater success in attaining federal offices 
 for his followers than had Buchanan. The latter complained to 
 Postmaster-General Campbell upon noting in the Pennsylvanian 
 the appointment of a Cameron man as district attorney for 
 Western Pennsylvania, that Cameron, Moorhead, Dawson, and 
 their clique, now controlled this area and that juries would be 
 but political caucuses of their friends. He believed the same 
 would follow in the eastern part of the state. People whom Bu- 
 chanan thought faithful to himself had gone over to Cameron. 
 He feared the President would alienate his true friends in sup- 
 porting this group. Buchanan deplored the fact that he had 
 
i 3 4 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 not succeeded in obtaining the appointment of a single indivi- 
 dual beyond the limits of his own county, and closed his letter 
 with expressions of opinion decidedly unfavorable towards 
 Cameron. 2 A year later J. A. Parker, recently removed from the 
 office of the librarian of the House of Representatives, and a 
 warm friend of Buchanan, remonstrated with Campbell for hav- 
 ing appointed so few friends of Buchanan to office, adding that 
 Campbell had been appointed to the Post Office Department 
 through Buchanan's recommendation. The latter statement 
 Campbell denied. 3 
 
 In considering the selection of candidates for the canal board 
 in Pennsylvania, Cameron cautioned Coryell that "our friends 
 should not act without concert and reflection." He stated that 
 the public works of Pennsylvania needed reform, adding: 
 
 They are infested with worthless, dishonest men, and we need a man 
 of courage, as well as honesty and intelligence in the Canal Board, who 
 will select men for the stations under him for their capacity for honesty 
 instead of as now, because of their noisy pretentions. 4 
 
 Francis J. Grund of Pennsylvania, a correspondent and polit- 
 ical editorial writer for the Philadelphia Ledger, Harrisburg 
 Union, and other newspapers of the state, was Cameron's most 
 prolific correspondent from the national Capital. His letters 
 during the mid- 'fifties kept Cameron informed not only on the 
 national issues but also on the attitude of the various Pennsyl- 
 vania members of Congress towards the local issues and candi- 
 dates. He cautioned Cameron not to go too strongly for the 
 Nebraska Bill, believing that it would be sure to break down 
 the Administration whichever way it went, a prospect which 
 Grund did not look upon at all unfavorably. 5 This was good 
 advice for, though the Democratic congressmen from Pennsyl- 
 vania favored the measure, the people "back home" did not 
 present a united front. The state was closely balanced between 
 Whigs and Democrats, and E. B. Chase, editor of the Montrose 
 Democrat and ex-speaker of the house of representatives of 
 Pennsylvania, believed Cameron the only man who could carry 
 the state for the Democrats for the senatorship. Cameron was 
 not believed to be publicly committed on the repeal of the 
 
FINAL BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS 135 
 
 Missouri Compromise and that question would control several 
 votes from the northern area. 6 
 
 Colonel Reah Frazer, editor of the Lancastrian and formerly 
 an opponent of Cameron, had switched camps by the early 
 'fifties and his newspaper was now a force for Cameron at the 
 Buchanan county seat. When a group of Buchanan followers 
 launched attacks on Cameron in 1853, Frazer believed their acts 
 inspired by fear of Cameron's strength and thought them pre- 
 mature. His opinion of the group was anything but favorable. 
 He advised Cameron to pursue an even tenor but to be ever 
 alert and to fight all the time. 7 Many of Cameron's friends 
 hoped that J. Glancy Jones could be won to his support. He 
 had great strength in Reading and vicinity, and could be very 
 useful to the organization. Cameron was asked to refrain from 
 attacks upon him. In seeking to bring about this reconciliation, 
 Henry A. Muhlenberg pointed out to Cameron that he had 
 forgiven Frazer, whose sins were greater than were those of 
 Jones, so why not do as much for Jones when it would work 
 so greatly to his own advantage. 8 
 
 Innumerable letters came to Cameron from all over the state 
 with expressions of confidence and determination to support 
 his candidacy for the United States Senate. Judge Luther Kid- 
 der of Wilkes-Barre, a friend of Cameron from childhood, re- 
 viewed his services during his first term, especially during the 
 Mexican War, and declared he would go farther to see Cam- 
 eron re-elected to the Senate, than for any man of the State. 9 
 Judge Jeremiah S. Black looked upon him as the great "boss 
 politician," the biggest figure in one column or the other of 
 every leading calculation. People asked, "How does General 
 Cameron feel?" That was the question which had to be an- 
 swered before any prediction could be hazarded about a public 
 issue. Cameron was thoroughly posted, shrewdly observant, 
 and always in the thick of every contest. 10 David Wilmot, who 
 had not always been on the most friendly terms with him, wrote 
 that the matter of the senatorship was safe from any harm at 
 his hands and he would see that Cameron lacked nothing in 
 his quarter. He desired an opportunity to repay in part Cam- 
 eron's kindness of the past. 11 
 
 The Pennsylvania Democratic Convention of 1854 assembled 
 
136 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 in Harrisburg on March eighth and nominated Bigler for re- 
 election to the governorship by a vote of one hundred twenty- 
 eight to five. Judge Black was nominated for the supreme court 
 by acclamation and Henry S. Mott of Pike County was nomi- 
 nated for canal commissioner on the second ballot. 12 The unanim- 
 ity of the convention was highly gratifying to the Democratic 
 press. The Union declared that the only circumstance "which 
 causes us any regret is the fact that it was not determined by 
 the convention to give the great principle of non-intervention, 
 as affirmed in the Nebraska bill a direct and specific endorse- 
 ment." 18 This detail was properly taken care of two months 
 later, on June fifteenth, when, at the meeting of the Democratic 
 State Central Committee in Harrisburg, it was unanimously 
 agreed to go into the canvass for governor upon the principles 
 of non-intervention and popular sovereignty, as settled by the 
 Compromise of 1850 and embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska 
 Act. 14 This act, which had been debated in Congress for five 
 months, passed the Senate on March third and the House on 
 May twenty-second. 15 The Democratic members of Congress 
 from Pennsylvania had voted almost unanimously for the bill. 
 Wilmot had fought strenuously against it. Pressure was used 
 by the Administration in the course of its passage by the House 
 and the Administration press made capital of the victory. 16 
 
 The Philadelphia municipal election early in June resulted in 
 the choice of R. I. Conrad, a Whig, for mayor by eight thous- 
 and majority. In fact, the whole Whig ticket was elected. 17 
 This seems to have created no great alarm in Democratic circles. 
 It was felt that the defeat in Philadelphia was the result of local 
 circumstances and that nothing else could have been expected. 
 The Democrats believed that if they all worked together their 
 triumph in October would be complete and overwhelming; 
 however, the counties and districts must be looked to care- 
 fully. 18 An act of greater consequence to the Democrats oc- 
 curred in Harrisburg on August twentieth. The Free-Soil Mass 
 State Convention withdrew its state ticket and recommended 
 the support of Judge James Pollock, the Whig candidate for 
 governor. The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, an independent 
 newspaper, felt that this action might have a very important 
 bearing upon the October election. The chief object of the 
 
 
FINAL BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS 137 
 
 Free-Soil Party in Pennsylvania, at the time, was to procure 
 an expression of opinion against the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and 
 it concluded that this would be best done by supporting Judge 
 Pollock. Such a vote, with the major parties as nicely balanced 
 as they appeared to be, it believed of great consequence, and 
 hoped it might determine the result of the elction. 19 
 
 Governor Bigler and Cameron were on friendly terms during 
 the campaign, and Bigler indicated to Cameron where his ser- 
 vices could be effectively used. A Mr. Rosenthal, editor of the 
 German newspaper at Philadelphia, favored Cameron for the sen- 
 atorship, but was undecided on the governorship. He was an 
 admirer of Wilmot and was opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska 
 Act. Bigler needed the German vote and suggested that Cam- 
 eron see Rosenthal, who would be largely controlled by his 
 views and wishes. 20 The friends of Cameron were by no means 
 all supporters of Bigler; some even expressed fear that he might 
 be re-elected. 21 
 
 Adherents in various parts of the state, in writing to Cam- 
 eron concerning the progress of the campaign in their respective 
 areas, frequently urged him to visit their district personally as 
 a means of clinching the support of some who were doubtful 
 or who could be won for him by the use of the right tactics. 
 Others sought checks of from two hundred to a thousand dol- 
 lars to be used for local campaign purposes. 22 
 
 Despite earlier Democratic expressions of confidence, the 
 election of October tenth worked a veritable political revolu- 
 tion in Pennsylvania. Bigler would not denounce the Kansas- 
 Nebraska Bill, and all the anger that had been generated against 
 it in Pennsylvania piled up against him. Pollock won the gov- 
 vernorship by a majority of more than thirty-seven thousand 
 votes. 28 Bigler had won the place three years earlier by more 
 than eight thousand majority, and President Pierce had car- 
 ried the state two years earlier by almost eleven thousand. The 
 revolution was also overwhelming in the election of Pennsyl- 
 vania congressmen. In 1852 Pennsylvania had elected sixteen 
 Democrats and nine Whigs; in 1854 it elected five Democrats 
 and twenty Whigs. 24 However, Judge Black won over his Whig 
 opponent for the supreme court by a vote of more than two 
 
138 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 to one, and Mott for canal commissioner by a vote of more than 
 three to one. 25 
 
 In the legislature, the number of Democrats dropped from 
 eighty-eight to forty-nine while the Whig representation ad- 
 vanced from forty to sixty-one. The new "American" or Know- 
 Nothing Party pushed the third-party advance from five to 
 twenty-three. 26 The reaction seems to have been chiefly with 
 reference to federal rather than state policy and was based dur- 
 ing the campaign largely upon the Kansas-Nebraska question. 
 There had been a rising tide of indignation among the inde- 
 pendent voters, who determined to repudiate the attempt to 
 commit them to federal administrative policies by forcing these 
 policies as a part of party regularity. The efforts of Bigler to 
 dissociate national and state issues were futile. He had repudi- 
 ated, during his term as governor, pre-election promises to sup- 
 port the antislavery movement and now endorsed the Kansas- 
 Nebraska Act. Their vote was decisive. 
 
 The last legislature had contained an overwhelming Demo- 
 cratic majority. The new legislature, which would have the 
 duty of electing a United States Senator, would lack a majority 
 of either major party. This placed the "Americans" in a posi- 
 tion to hold the balance of power with their twenty-three votes. 
 The strong reaction shown in the election against the Demo- 
 crats led the Independent Whig of Harrisburg to conclude that 
 the contest for United States Senator lay between the Honor- 
 able Thaddeus Stevens and the Honorable David Wilmot. 27 
 
 As a result of the set-back of October, 1854, some of the 
 Democrats became discouraged and were ready to give up the 
 fight, but that was not the case with Cameron. He wrote en- 
 couraging letters to his followers urging even greater efforts. 
 He also directed some of his trusted lieutenants to write letters 
 to newly elected members of the legislature where there was a 
 chance they might be won for him. In reply to one of Camer- 
 on's letters, E. B. Chase wrote "your letter encourages me to 
 continue to fight on." He had about abandoned hope but now 
 had hope that the senatorship could be saved for the Demo- 
 crats. 28 At Cameron's request, Judge George Rahn of Philadel- 
 phia wrote to Benjamin Christ that of all the persons considered 
 for the senatorship Simon Cameron could best guard and pro- 
 
FINAL BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS 139 
 
 tect Pennsylvania's interests. He had been tried and proven by 
 having served in the Senate. The tariff situation since 1842 was 
 reviewed. Cameron was depicted as in a better position than 
 other candidates to serve the great coal and iron interests of the 
 state. 29 The letter was effective in winning the support of 
 Christ. 30 It was desirable to have many friends come to Harris- 
 burg and work among the members of the legislature in Cam- 
 eron's interest during the weeks prior to the election. Such a 
 request was extended to Lewis S. Coryell, an old business 
 and political friend, with the admonition that skill, prudence, 
 and discretion would be needed. 31 
 
 The old bugaboo of the Winnebago Claims Settlement was 
 again revived by the opponents of Cameron, during the early 
 weeks of 1855. Senator James Cooper, whose term would ex- 
 pire on March fourth, 32 had become a member of the House 
 of Representatives the year following Cameron's service on the 
 Winnebago Commission, and he had later served as chairman 
 of the Indian Affairs Committee. Cameron now wrote to him 
 recalling that some disappointed claimants had assailed the 
 character and motives of the Commission and that the subject 
 was brought into Congress and referred to the Committee on 
 Indian Affairs. He pointed out that some malicious persons dur- 
 ing the present campaign seemed determined to renew the 
 charges against him of misconduct and dishonesty. He requested 
 Cooper, from his knowledge of the matter as a member of the 
 committee, in fairness and generosity to him (Cameron) to 
 make a statement of the facts relative to the case. 33 Cooper re- 
 plied that John Bell was chairman of the committee when the 
 investigation was made. Later, when he was chairman, the sub- 
 ject was again brought to the attention of his committee. He 
 declared that: 
 
 it is but due to truth and justice to state that in the course of the exami- 
 nation, no fact was elicited, calculated, in my judgment to reflect in 
 the smallest on your integrity or honesty as a man and as an officer. 
 After a full examination the subject was dismissed, the Committee re- 
 garding the charges as unfounded and as originating either [in] igno- 
 rance or malice. 34 
 
 J. K. Kane of Philadelphia, who had been retained by Brod- 
 
i 4 o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 head to support his own claims on the subject, was also asked 
 for a statement. Kane declared that the Secretary of War refused 
 to recognize Brodhead's purchases of the Indian certificates of 
 claims, on the grounds that they had been bought at inadequate 
 prices, "but," added Kane, "I did not understand that he con- 
 troverted the fairness of the awards themselves or the conduct 
 of the commissioners by whom they were made." 35 
 
 John M. Kirkpatrick, a member of the Pennsylvania house 
 of representatives, issued a series of interrogations to Cameron 
 which, as a candidate for the senatorship, he was requested to 
 answer. The questions dealt primarily with slavery but also in- 
 cluded some on tariff, congressional appropriations for rivers 
 and harbors, and the period of residence required of aliens for 
 citizenship. 30 Cameron immediately sent a reply to Kirkpatrick. 
 On the slavery questions his answers placed him in opposition 
 to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, favoring a restoration of the 
 A4issouri Compromise, and ready to act with the North in a 
 revision of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. On the question of 
 slavery in the territories, he stood on the Wilmot Proviso prin- 
 ciple. He favored a protective tariff giving the same reasons set 
 forth in his speech of July 19, 1846. He recognized the right of 
 Congress to legislate and to appropriate funds for rivers and 
 harbors and deplored executive vetoes of such measures. He 
 favored the extension of the residence requirement for foreign 
 persons seeking citizenship to twenty-one years. 37 
 
 Perhaps Cameron extended himself a bit in his reply to Kirk- 
 patrick — he was intent upon gaining the support of the "Ameri- 
 can" membership of the legislature and also the antislavery ele- 
 ment. The caucuses in February were soon to show that many 
 members of the legislature elected on both the Democratic and 
 the Whig tickets were in reality "American"; in fact, the 
 "American" Party virtually displaced the Whig Party in Penn- 
 sylvania. On the basis of the 1854 election there were sixty- 
 one members of the legislature listed as Whigs; yet only eight 
 of these appeared in the Whig caucus to nominate a candidate 
 for the senatorship. There were forty-nine members of the leg- 
 islature listed as Democrats, but only twenty-six took part in 
 the Democratic caucus. 
 
 In the caucus of the "American" members of the legislature, 
 
FINAL BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS 141 
 
 held on February ninth, which included ninety-one of the one 
 hundred thirty membership, Cameron was the leading candi- 
 date for the senatorship. On the first ballot he polled twenty- 
 seven votes, to eleven for Andrew G. Curtin, while fifty-one 
 votes were scattered among seventeen other candidates. The 
 next four ballots showed a steady increase for both Cameron 
 and Curtin. The fifth ballot gave Cameron forty-six, Curtin 
 thirty-seven, with nine scattered votes. This meant a total of 
 ninety-two votes had been registered with only ninety-one 
 persons in the caucus. Great excitement ensued. Twenty-nine 
 members left the room rather than participate in another ballot, 
 one being an officer of the meeting who openly avowed that 
 there was no wrong to be imputed to any one in relation to the 
 extra vote — that it was a mere mistake, which could have oc- 
 curred under any such circumstances at any time with any 
 persons. On the sixth ballot, Cameron received forty-four, 
 Curtin eleven, James Cooper two, and Henry M. Fuller two. 
 Three members declined to vote. Cameron had forty-four votes 
 from sixty-two members present and on motion the nomination 
 was made unanimous for him. 38 One newspaper reported that 
 during the three weeks following this caucus various "Ameri- 
 can" and Whig mass meetings were held throughout the state 
 endorsing by resolutions the caucus choice of General Cameron, 
 the great champion of Pennsylvania's interests. 39 
 
 Alexander K. McClure declared that Curtin and Cameron 
 became implacably estranged as a result of this contest for the 
 senatorship in 1855. The feud continued to the end of their 
 political careers, and from that time they never met or exchanged 
 the ordinary courtesies of life except on ceremonial occa- 
 sions. 40 This became a matter of considerable importance in the 
 early months of the Civil War, when, with Curtin as Governor 
 of Pennsylvania and Cameron as Secretary of War, co-opera- 
 tion was so necessary. 
 
 The editor of the National Era expressed some doubt as to 
 the sincerity of Cameron as an opponent of slavery and as to 
 the wisdom of the Know-Nothings in nominating him, declaring 
 that the action had created some surprise. Cameron was classi- 
 fied as one of the old body-guard of slavery who, when in the 
 Senate before, was uniformly subservient to the slave power. 
 
1 42 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 The editorial closed with the caustic supposition that "his nomi- 
 nation is to be accepted as an evidence of the Anti-Slavery 
 character of the Order." 41 A correspondent telegraphed the 
 Cincinnati Gazette that charges of fraudulent balloting were 
 made and a row was expected when the election should take 
 place. 42 
 
 Those "American" members who withdrew from the caucus 
 drew up and had printed circulars or hand-bills addressed "To 
 the Public." The circulars were for the purpose of justifying 
 their action before the public and as a protest against the nomi- 
 nation of Cameron. The bolters declared that they withdrew 
 after several ballots, when they became convinced of intrigue 
 and treachery in many who openly repudiated but secretly 
 voted for Cameron. They then proceeded to vilify that gentle- 
 man. Twenty-eight of those who withdrew signed the docu- 
 ment. 43 Cameron kept a copy of this circular with his papers 
 and on the back are two endorsements in his handwriting. In 
 the first he stated: "My election in 1857 was a complete vindi- 
 cation and triumph." The second, written much later, read: 
 "Nearly all the men who signed this paper lived long enough 
 to express their regret and to ask and receive substantial favors 
 from me. Many of them too showed the sincerity of their re- 
 gret by voting and aiding to elect me to the U. S. Senate in 
 
 These "American" bolters called a caucus in which feeling 
 was intense but little was accomplished. They did not unite on 
 a candidate. The day before the election, the Democratic cau- 
 cus, composed of the Administration or Kansas-Nebraska Demo- 
 crats, with twenty-six present, nominated Charles R. Buckalew 
 of Columbia. On the same day the Whigs, with only eight 
 present, nominated Thomas Williams of Allegheny. A reporter 
 for the New York Times observed that the results of the elec- 
 tion were looked upon as quite uncertain and that efforts would 
 be made to stave off the election. 44 
 
 The joint-session of the legislature convened on February 
 thirteenth. On the first ballot, Cameron had fifty-eight votes, 
 Buckalew twenty-eight, J. Prengle Jones eleven, Wilmot nine, 
 and the remaining twenty-three votes were scattered among 
 several others. On the next ballot Cameron gained one, Bucka- 
 
FINAL BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS 143 
 
 lew lost one, Jones dropped to seven, and Wilmot gained two. 
 On this ballot, with only one hundred twenty-seven votes cast, 
 Cameron was within five votes of election, and that was to re- 
 main his peak in all the balloting. It appeared evident that none 
 of the leading factions could secure enough votes to elect its 
 favorite. The convention therefore, by a vote of sixty-six to 
 sixty-two, agreed to an adjournment until February twenty- 
 seventh, when they would resume balloting. 45 
 
 The two-week recess was used by the various factions to 
 strengthen their political fences through efforts both to win new 
 support and to undermine the support of rival candidates. Wil- 
 mot was indignant because E. B. Chase, the anti-Wilmot editor 
 of the Montrose Democrat, obtained and published in garbled 
 form a personal note written by Wilmot to Cameron more than 
 a year earlier expressing a preference for the latter over his 
 rivals of the old-line Democracy. The garbled publication was 
 made to appear as an endorsement of Cameron's candidacy at 
 the immediate time and under the existing circumstances. 46 
 John C. Dunn wrote that a Mr. McCalmot was going to Harris- 
 burg soon. He would endeavor to induce his cousin to vote for 
 Cameron, and failing this would try to keep him from the con- 
 vention when the vote was taken. He suggested that Cameron's 
 friends do him a similar kindness by taking some of his oppo- 
 nents to Philadelphia or New York. 47 
 
 Letters poured in from all over the state offering any services 
 possible to Cameron; many persons expressing willingness to 
 come to Harrisburg to exercise personal influence on various 
 members of the legislature. K. Pritchette wrote from the na- 
 tional Capital that efforts were being made to direct to others 
 some of the votes pledged to Cameron and that John W. 
 Forney and David R. Porter were both working hard to defeat 
 him. From his vantage point, he offered suggestions to Cameron 
 as to certain tactical procedures. 48 
 
 Old-line Democrats and bolters from the "American" cau- 
 cus made this recess period an occasion to hold indignation 
 meetings against Cameron. The strength of the Cameron or- 
 ganization was sufficient at times to make the meetings back- 
 fire on those who called them. Such a meeting was held in 
 Easton on February twentieth. It was called for the purpose of 
 
i 4 4 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 adopting resolutions denouncing Major Fry, of the senate, for 
 supporting General Cameron. William H. Hutter, editor of the 
 Argus, submitted a series of resolutions to this end. A Mr. Fox 
 (an American-Democrat) moved a modifying amendment to 
 the resolutions which was rejected. Then occurred a scene 
 which the reporter declared beggared description. The result 
 was that the "American" portion of the meeting drove the old- 
 line Democrats out, after which resolutions were passed com- 
 mending the course of Mr. Fry, and instructing their members 
 of the house, Messrs. Bush and Johnson, also to support General 
 Cameron in the legislative convention when it re-assembled on 
 the twenty-seventh. 49 A similar meeting occurred in Pittsburgh 
 three days later, attended by three hundred persons. 50 It was a 
 farce and a failure as far as the purpose for its calling was con- 
 cerned, though it did not turn the tables for Cameron in such a 
 determined manner as had been done in the Easton meeting. 
 Among other things, resolutions were read favoring a western 
 candidate. No one was named and the resolutions were not 
 acted on. 
 
 The Pennsylvania house of representatives appointed a com- 
 mittee to investigate charges of bribery in relation to the sena- 
 torial election. On the afternoon before the convention was to 
 re-assemble, this committee reported that twenty-five witnesses 
 had been examined; four or five whom they wanted to examine 
 had not been found. It stated further that the testimony was 
 imperfect and unsatisfactory and in the present shape should 
 not be published. Thus far, no testimony had been elicited 
 tending to fix on any candidate for Senator, before the conven- 
 tion, any attempt to obtain his nomination and election by cor- 
 rupt or improper influences. F. Jordan, the chairman of the 
 committee, and one other member refused to sign the report, 
 because they placed a different estimate on the evidence. 51 Jor- 
 dan was one of the "American" caucus bolters who had signed 
 the petition against Cameron two weeks earlier. 
 
 On Tuesday, February twenty-seventh, the two houses of 
 the legislature assembled in convention to try again to elect a 
 United States Senator. Three ballots were taken without effect- 
 ing a choice. The votes did not vary much from those taken 
 a fortnight earlier; Cameron received fifty-five (except on the 
 
FINAL BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS 145 
 
 second ballot, when he had one less) and Buckalew received 
 twenty-three, while the remaining fifty-odd were scattered 
 among a number of candidates. 52 Far from making the electing 
 easier, the two-week recess worked in the opposite direction. 
 The votes for Cameron and for Buckalew fell off several points. 
 Several new candidates were brought into the field — fully a 
 score of men at one time or another entered the contest for the 
 senatorship — and only in four cases did any candidates other 
 than Cameron and Buckalew poll more than six votes. 
 
 The convention, hopelessly divided on a senatorial choice, 
 rejected a motion to adjourn until the next day; but, by a narrow 
 margin of one vote (sixty-six to sixty-five), agreed to adjourn 
 until the first Tuesday in October next. 53 This action virtually 
 meant an indefinite postponement, for it would require the 
 Governor's call to bring it together after the adjournment of 
 the legislature. Furthermore, it gave to Governor Pollock the 
 power of appointing a Senator to act until an election could be 
 effected. 
 
 General William Larimer, Jr., a friend of Cameron in Pitts- 
 burgh, wrote to him some two weeks after the indignation 
 meeting was held in that city. 54 He noted that there were men 
 in that part of the state who would not vote for Cameron, feel- 
 ing that one Senator should be from western Pennsylvania. He 
 solicited support for himself if Cameron saw he could not win, 
 and pledged himself to carry out Cameron's wishes to the letter. 
 He believed that Cameron would have no difficulty in suc- 
 ceeding Brodhead in the Senate when his term should expire in 
 1857, since Brodhead was from eastern Pennsylvania. 
 
 The motion to adjourn the convention until October had been 
 carried by only one vote. It was therefore but natural that its 
 opponents should seek to rescind the action. In the senate on 
 March eighth, a series of resolutions was offered to annul the 
 vote of adjournment. They were referred to the committee on 
 the judiciary, 55 where they were allowed to die. 
 
 Cameron desired the election of Senator to be made without 
 waiting until fall more than he desired his own success. He said 
 so to his confidential friends and made the distinct proposition 
 to Governor Pollock that he would withdraw his name from 
 the contest on the condition that the Governor would put his 
 
146 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 influence behind a movement with Cameron's friends to bring 
 the convention together. Cameron stated only one other con- 
 dition, namely, that the selection should not be made from 
 among those who had made war on him. He was tired of the 
 contest but declared that, if the election went over to the fall, 
 self-respect and regard for his friends would compel him to 
 be a candidate until a Senator was elected. 56 Cameron's friends 
 also vainly endeavored to persuade the Governor to re-assem- 
 ble the legislature. He could not be prevailed upon to do so, 
 believing that no business could be brought before it but that 
 of electing a United States Senator. He did not desire to pre- 
 vent the meeting but was unwilling to assume the responsi- 
 bility. 57 
 
 The convention therefore was not re-assembled. The cam- 
 paign for the senatorship continued, and Cameron stayed in the 
 thick of it. His followers continued to file reports with him on 
 local conditions throughout the state. Candidates for office in 
 the October election, from various localities, wrote to him re- 
 questing loans of from one hundred to five hundred dollars in 
 order to be able to devote more time to the task of winning the 
 election. Others begged leave to spend some hundreds of Cam- 
 eron's money to aid in the election of the candidates of their 
 districts suggesting that to make the election reasonably certain 
 five hundred or six hundred dollars must be distributed in the 
 county for wages. 58 Some requested "loans" while some ap- 
 pealed outright for gifts. Evidently Cameron was not deaf to all 
 these pleas, for Dr. H. E. Muhlenberg of Lancaster wrote that 
 he had received Cameron's check and the money was being dis- 
 tributed to the best advantage. 59 
 
 Another significant point to be noted in Cameron's struggle for 
 political power in Pennsylvania is that, by the summer of 1855, 
 his correspondents began referring to the political "machine" 
 and asking Cameron to tell them what he wanted done in specif- 
 ic cases. They were now looking to him as the directing genius 
 of the organization. 60 
 
 The Democratic local conventions throughout the state dur- 
 ing the summer and early fall were rather enthusiastic, and 
 well they might have been, for there was great division among 
 their opponents. They passed strong resolutions against the 
 
FINAL BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS 147 
 
 "Americans" or Know-Nothings, lauded the Constitution and 
 the Union, and emphasized the national adherence to Demo- 
 cratic policies. 
 
 There were features of the Know-Nothing Party, carry- 
 overs from earlier Nativist movements, which were strongly 
 opposed by many of the newer adherents to the party; particu- 
 larly distasteful were the policies of secrecy and anti-Catholi- 
 cism. A state convention of "Americans" was held in Lancaster 
 early in April, at which ex-Governor Johnston, Simon Cam- 
 eron, and other prominent persons were present. A debate arose 
 upon a motion to do away with the secrecy of the order. It was 
 said to have ended in a feud which finally broke up the conven- 
 tion. 61 Two months later the Know-Nothings held a national 
 convention at Philadelphia. A great and enthusiastic banquet 
 attended by four hundred fifty people, featured the program. 62 
 In the convention, the wrangle over secrecy and anti-Catholi- 
 cism was continued, both policies being maintained, and little 
 generosity was shown to a Catholic delegation from Louisiana. 
 The Know-Nothings in New Orleans repudiated the platform 
 of this Philadelphia Convention. The slavery clauses suited 
 them well enough, but they objected to the part which exclud- 
 ed Catholics and it was said that they would vote the Demo- 
 cratic ticket. 63 The twelfth (pro-slavery) section of the na- 
 tional platform was shortly afterwards repudiated by the Penn- 
 sylvania state council of the party as repugnant to the great 
 body of the people of the state and to the sentiment in favor 
 of prohibiting slavery in the territories — a sentiment which 
 could not be removed from the minds of Northern people. 64 
 Thus the Pennsylvania Know-Nothings were unable to .work 
 in harmony with the national organization. 
 
 Before the fall elections in Pennsylvania, the state was sub- 
 jected to still further political convulsions. The passage of the 
 Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 produced a situation which meant 
 the death of the Whig Party as a nation-wide organization. 
 Even before the passage of the bill a movement had been started 
 to unite all elements opposed to slavery extension into a new 
 party. Dr. Gamaliel Bailey, editor of the National Era, had for 
 some time been persistently urging through the columns of 
 his paper that the advance of the slave interests could not be 
 
1 48 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 effectively checked by action through the old parties. Israel 
 Washburne of Maine accords chief credit for the founding of 
 the party to Dr. Bailey. Bailey probably did little more than 
 point out the difficulties in the way of checking the advance of 
 slavery by action through the old parties and stimulate men's 
 thoughts towards other action. The meetings at Ripon, Wiscon- 
 sin, in February, 1854, and Jackson, Michigan, in July, 1854, 
 laid the real basis for the movement which resulted in the or- 
 ganization of the Republican Party. 65 
 
 Almost simultaneously, during 1854 and 1855, in different 
 parts of the Middle West, in New England, and in the Middle 
 Atlantic States, the party grew through the formation of com- 
 mittees and the holding of mass meetings. These were followed 
 by local and state conventions which in turn promulgated the 
 policies and purposes of the party. Not until 1856 was the name 
 Republican adopted for the organization in some of the states. 
 In that year it was organized on a national scale. 06 
 
 By the summer of 1855 several Whig newspapers of Pennsyl- 
 vania were urging a Republican organization for the state. The 
 Pittsburgh Gazette, for many years the leading and most ardent 
 antislavery Whig newspaper in western Pennsylvania, noted on 
 July second that there was a very strong Republican movement 
 in the western counties led by the Whigs. It believed that the 
 time for decided political action was rapidly approaching. It 
 recommended that Whigs throughout the state get busy, that 
 they follow the example of the Whigs in some of the western 
 counties and organize the Republican Party. 67 The same paper 
 a few days later, observing the dissatisfaction of the old-line 
 Democracy of Pennsylvania with the administration policy 
 relative to slavery, 68 trusted that "the friends of Freedom in 
 Pennsylvania" would speedily take steps to organize themselves 
 into the Republican Party, as had been done in Ohio. 69 
 
 The Gazette of August eighth sounded a call for a state con- 
 vention at Pittsburgh. It was signed by leading Republicans in 
 all parts of the state. A local meeting in Reading, with repre- 
 sentatives from ten counties, called upon the people to assemble 
 in mass convention at Pittsburgh on September fifth. 70 At the 
 Pittsburgh Convention, the state organization was perfected 
 and a platform adopted under the name Republican. 71 For the 
 
FINAL BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS 149 
 
 one state office to be filled, that of canal commissioner, the con- 
 vention nominated Passmore Williamson, an antislavery lawyer, 
 who was at the time in prison as a result of contempt of court 
 in a fugitive slave case. The nomination was not acceptable to 
 the more conservative Whigs and Know-Nothings. 72 
 
 The antislavery interests realized the futility of entering the 
 contest with several candidates. On September twenty-seventh 
 the state committees of the Whig, Know-Nothing, and Repub- 
 lican Parties met in Harrisburg, effected a fusion, withdrew 
 their respective candidates, jointly nominated Thomas Nichol- 
 son of Beaver as candidate for canal commissioner, and issued 
 an address to the people of the state calling for united anti- 
 slavery support for Nicholson. They explained their action as 
 an effort to concentrate the votes of the anti-Nebraska people 
 on one man, and to prevent the election of Arnold Plummer, 
 the Nebraska candidate of the Democrats. 73 The fusion was 
 accomplished only about a week before the election, and support 
 was not entirely withdrawn from the original nominees. Plum- 
 mer was elected by more than eleven thousand majority. If 
 Nicholson had received the united support of the fused parties, 
 he would have won by almost three thousand votes. 74 
 
 The Democrats regained control of the legislature. Though 
 the opposition was numerically stronger in the state its vote 
 was divided. The Democrats maintained their same strength 
 in the senate, seventeen, to sixteen for the opposition. In the 
 house they jumped their membership from thirty-two to sixty- 
 six. 75 This gave them a majority of thirty-three on joint ballot. 
 
 The results of the October election eliminated the oppor- 
 tunity of Cameron to be elected to the United States Senate 
 by the next legislature. The Democrats had a large majority on 
 joint ballot and Cameron's dealings with the Know-Nothings 
 in the last legislature and in the recent election placed him be- 
 yond their consideration. On January fourteenth former Gov- 
 ernor William Bigler was elected by the united Democratic 
 vote of the legislature, the opposition casting its vote for the 
 Honorable Edward J. Morris of Philadelphia. 76 Pollock had not 
 appointed a Senator and Pennsylvania had had only one Senator 
 since the expiration of the term of James Cooper on March 
 fourth of the previous year. Two weeks after his election Big- 
 
1 5 o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 ler appeared before the Senate; Senator Brodhead presented his 
 credentials; he was qualified and took his seat. 77 
 
 Brodhead's term would end on March fourth of the next year. 
 In the meantime Pennsylvania would elect another legislature 
 which in turn would select Brodhead's successor. What were 
 Cameron's prospects? Viewed from January of 1856, they were 
 none too promising. He had broken with the Democratic Party 
 a year earlier when he had sought to repeat his achievement of 
 1845. He had failed, though he had come within a very few 
 votes of his goal. After his first wandering, the Democrats had 
 grudgingly accepted him back into the fold. It was hardly like- 
 ly that they would forgive him for "taking a walk" a second 
 time. He had lost his affection for the party leaders and their 
 principles, and, during 1854, 1855, and 1856, had courted op- 
 posing elements. 78 Party ties were breaking in Pennsylvania, as 
 elsewhere, 79 following the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, 
 and, in this period of transition, efforts were being made in the 
 state to form a group that could present a united front against 
 the Democratic Party. Could it be accomplished in time for 
 the next senatorial election? If so, what chance had Cameron of 
 leading the forces? To start with he had the advantage of hav- 
 ing built up during past years a rather large following of loyal 
 supporters (not based entirely on old party lines) who looked 
 to him for advice and leadership, and who could follow him 
 upon whatever political paths he chose to lead them. 
 
 David Wilmot, chairman of the Pennsylvania State Republi- 
 can Committee, acting with the chairmen of four other state 
 committees, issued the call for a meeting at Pittsburgh for Feb- 
 ruary 22, 1856, to organize the national party and prepare for a 
 national convention. An informal gathering of the delegates 
 was held on the evening of February twenty-first in the parlor 
 of the Monongahela Hotel, Pittsburgh, for the purpose of mak- 
 ing preliminary arrangements for the convention. At that meet- 
 ing plans were made for the selection of the Hon. Francis P. 
 Blair, Sr., of Silver Springs, Maryland, as chairman. 80 The con- 
 vention adopted the recommendations of George W. Julian of 
 Indiana, chairman of the committee on national organization, pro- 
 viding for the appointment of a national executive committee 
 consisting of one from each state and the holding of a national 
 
FINAL BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS 151 
 
 nominating convention in Philadelphia on the seventeenth of 
 June. It was suggested that the Republicans of the different states 
 complete their organization at the earliest practicable moment. 81 
 This was a mass rather than a representative or delegate con- 
 vention, and, since no roll of members was preserved, there is 
 available today only a partial list of those present — the names 
 of those addressing the convention and those appointed to 
 offices, committees, etc., as recorded in the proceedings and in 
 the newspaper reports. 
 
 As a year of national nominating conventions, campaigns, and 
 elections, 1856 proceeded from an early start in February. The 
 "Americans," or Know-Nothings, assembled on February 
 twenty-second in Philadelphia. With very little opposition, 
 Millard Fillmore was nominated for president and Andrew J. 
 Donelson for vice president. 82 A quarrel concerning slavery 
 and the authority of the national council to make the platform 
 of the party resulted in the secession of many delegates who 
 later met in New York on June twelfth and nominated Na- 
 thaniel P. Banks of Massachusetts for president and ex-Governor 
 William F. Johnston of Pennsylvania for vice president. 83 There 
 were seceders from this convention who in turn nominated still 
 other candidates. Eventually most of the members of both of 
 these groups supported either Fillmore or Fremont. 
 
 The Democrats assembled in Cincinnati on June second and 
 were in session five days. John E. Ward of Savannah, Georgia, 
 was made permanent chairman. Buchanan, Pierce, and Douglas 
 were the chief contenders for the nomination. Buchanan led 
 the list on every ballot, with his vote and that of Douglas show- 
 ing steady gains as support was gradually withdrawn from 
 Pierce. On the seventeenth ballot, after some states had changed 
 their votes, Buchanan won and was then unanimously nomi- 
 nated. The vice-presidential nomination went unanimously to 
 John C. Breckinridge on the second ballot. 84 
 
 The Republican National Convention met in Philadelphia on 
 June seventeenth as had been planned at the Pittsburgh meet- 
 ing. Henry S. Lane of Indiana was made permanent chairman. 
 Seward and Chase were withdrawn before balloting began, 
 leaving John C. Fremont of California by all odds the strong- 
 est candidate, as shown by an informal ballot. After much 
 
i 5 2 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 speaking on the part of delegates who had voted for other can- 
 didates, a formal ballot was taken in which Fremont received 
 all but thirty-eight votes, thirty-seven of which were cast for 
 Judge John McLean of Ohio. On the motion of General J. W. 
 Webb of New York, Fremont's nomination was made unani- 
 mous. 85 An informal ballot was likewise taken for vice president. 
 William L. Dayton of New Jersey received almost half the 
 votes cast. A formal ballot followed and after various states 
 changed their votes Dayton was unanimously nominated. 86 Fre- 
 mont believed that the nomination of Dayton was the great 
 mistake of the convention. He wanted Cameron. Buchanan had 
 just been named the Democratic candidate for the presidency 
 and Fremont believed that with Cameron for his running-mate 
 the Republicans would have been enabled to wage a stronger 
 fight in Pennsylvania. 87 He believed that Blair was responsible 
 for the convention's blunder. Weed, writing to Cameron after 
 the November election, agreed: "The first, and as I still think 
 fatal error, was in not taking a Vice-President in whose nomina- 
 tion the North Americans would have concurred cordially." 
 However, he placed the responsibility elsewhere, declaring that 
 "The McLean men, aided by Greeley, threw us off the track." 88 
 
 The Democratic platform reiterated the principles of plat- 
 forms since 1840, adopted additional resolutions upholding the 
 principles of the compromise measures of 1850, making special 
 reference to the territories, and endorsing the Kansas-Nebraska 
 Act. 89 The Republican platform was formulated by a commit- 
 tee of whom David Wilmot was chairman. It implored a re- 
 turn to the principles promulgated in the Declaration of In- 
 dependence and embodied in the federal Constitution; advocated 
 the Wilmot Proviso principle, terming polygamy and slavery 
 "twin relics of barbarism"; and excoriated the policy of the Ad- 
 ministration towards Kansas. For practical vote-getting planks, 
 it advocated federal aid in the construction of a railroad to the 
 Pacific and congressional appropriations for improvements of 
 rivers and harbors of a national character. 90 The platform, 
 strangely enough, was silent on the tariff. 
 
 The campaign which followed was an extraordinary one, 
 especially in the North. Here the Republicans conducted a 
 canvass rivaling that of 1 840 in enthusiasm, and having what the 
 
FINAL BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS 153 
 
 former campaign lacked — a definite purpose and a clearly under- 
 stood policy. Great political clubs were organized. Torchlight 
 parades and immense public meetings were featured. 91 A corres- 
 pondent of the Boston Atlas suggested that as the Buchanan 
 men in Pennsylvania were forming "Wheatland Clubs" (named 
 for Buchanan's residence) the banner inscribed with Fremont's 
 name should have for its device a threshing machine. 92 
 
 Pennsylvania's state election on October fourteenth was look- 
 ed upon as crucial. The antislavery feeling in Pennsylvania per- 
 vaded the minds of several factions, the Republican organiza- 
 tion being one. The only hope of defeating the Democrats lay 
 in united action. Pursuant to this conviction some members of 
 the legislature had issued a call for a Union State Convention 
 to meet in Harrisburg on March twenty-sixth. 98 It was com- 
 posed of Republicans, a few who still called themselves Whigs, 
 and "Americans" of a variety of degrees of antislavery senti- 
 ment. Many of the Republicans had recently been Whigs, some 
 of them had been Democrats; most of the "Americans" had been 
 Whigs, while some had been Democrats. An argument develop- 
 ed between the "Americans" of the eastern and western sec- 
 tions of the state, but they finally arrived at a working agree- 
 ment, drew up a kind of platform, and made nominations for 
 state offices. 94 
 
 The October election was expected to show how Pennsyl- 
 vania would go in November. Each party girded itself for the 
 struggle. The strategists of the national parties turned their at- 
 tention to Pennsylvania. Speakers and money were poured into 
 the state from other parts of the Union. The Republicans were 
 in straitened circumstances financially to a far greater degree 
 than were the Democrats, and their state organization was 
 weaker. E. D. Morgan of New York, chairman of the Republi- 
 can National Committee, exerted strenuous effort in the cam- 
 paign to raise funds for the party. 95 The Democrats had the 
 further advantage of the "favorite son" plea and a better news- 
 paper coverage of the state. There was a feeling among some 
 Pennsylvania leaders as late as August that the state's importance 
 was not recognized by the Republican National Committee and 
 therefore was neglected. 96 
 
 Greater efforts to carry Pennsylvania were put forth by the 
 
i 5 4 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Republicans during the last two months before the election. 
 Thurlow Weed informed Cameron of a meeting of the na- 
 tional committee at the Astor House on August twentieth, and 
 asked him to attend. Cameron's advice and co-operation were 
 deemed very important. Weed requested that if Cameron could 
 not go to New York he should meet him in Philadelphia earlier 
 to go over important matters. 97 Francis P. Blair, the Maryland 
 member of the national committee, rendered valuable council 
 and advice. He and Buchanan had formerly been friends and 
 both had been admirers of General Jackson. Blair and Buchanan 
 had broken during the Polk administration, and Blair, in 1848, 
 became a Free-Soiler, while Buchanan remained a Democrat. 
 In the eighteen-fifties they drifted into a state of bitter enmity 
 towards each other and in the campaign of 1856 were speaking 
 of each other as "Old Buck" and "Old Blair." 98 Cameron shared 
 with Blair this feeling towards Buchanan. The latter wrote to 
 the former reviewing some of Buchanan's past acts towards 
 those who had aided him politically, expressed a very unfavor- 
 able opinion of him, and urged an all-out effort to compass his 
 defeat. 99 
 
 The Democrats met the Republican challenge in Pennsyl- 
 vania with a more adequate treasury and with an array of speak- 
 ers drawn from all over the United States. With masterful or- 
 ganization, under the leadership of John W. Forney as state 
 chairman, every quarter of the state was supplied with a con- 
 tinuous list of speakers properly chosen for the section. They 
 depicted the Republican Party as the party of radicalism, which 
 had its effect upon Pennsylvania audiences; and at the same 
 time they tried to keep as large a gap as possible between the 
 Fremont and the Fillmore supporters. 100 The day before the 
 election Forney wrote to George N. Sanders of New York: 
 
 We are resolute, confident, and energetic. We have returns from 
 every county in the State, all of which have been districted and can- 
 vassed, and I have yet to find a Democrat who does not believe that 
 we will defeat them [the Republicans] tomorrow by from ten to fif- 
 teen thousand majority. 
 
 However, Forney expected the Democrats to be defeated in 
 Allegheny County and in the Wilmot district, declaring: "Both 
 
FINAL BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS 155 
 
 regions have been thoroughly penetrated and canvassed and 
 yet up to this moment they seem to be impregnable to truth or 
 to effort." 101 
 
 The October election resulted in a Democratic victory in 
 Pennsylvania. 102 Their candidate for canal commissioner won 
 by twenty-seven hundred votes, and they won control of sixty- 
 eight seats in the legislature. The latter gave them a majority of 
 three votes on joint ballot. The Democrats also won fourteen 
 of the twenty-five seats in the national House of Representatives. 
 The vote was close. In a total of four hundred twenty-three 
 thousand cast, the Democrats had carried the state election by 
 less than three thousand and the congressional election by less 
 than two thousand. 103 On the same day as the Pennsylvania 
 election the Republicans had met disaster also in the Indiana 
 state election. 
 
 The results of the October elections dampened the enthusiasm 
 of some of the Republicans, while others, such as E. D. Morgan, 
 chairman of the Republican executive committee, increased 
 their endeavors to raise funds and were still hopeful of Republi- 
 can success. 104 In a small group discussing the prospects of the 
 November election, Henry Wilson said in a spirit of hopeful 
 enthusiasm: "Well, they may beat us this time, but we will win 
 in i860." Cameron, Weed, and Blair were all much older men; 
 and Cameron, always practical in his ideas, replied that it was 
 very well for Wilson to look hopefully for future triumps for 
 the new party, but that as for himself, Blair, and Weed, he 
 "didn't see much in future victories if they had to begin by 
 waiting four years." 105 He little dreamed that four and a half 
 years after this conversation he would be Lincoln's first secre- 
 tary of war. 
 
 The Republicans hoped, because of the small majority by 
 which the Democrats had carried the state ticket, that some 
 means might yet be found of saving the state for Fremont. They 
 realized that unless they formulated some scheme of union 
 stronger that that of March, Buchanan would carry the state. 
 Cameron, Blair, Weed, McClure, and Wilson, in conference in 
 Philadelphia immediately after the October election, developed 
 the plan of a Union electoral ticket. 106 Pursuant to this a Union 
 State Convention met in the hall of the house of representatives 
 
156 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 at Harrisburg on October twenty-first. This convention issued 
 an "Address to the People of Pennsylvania" over the signatures 
 of members of the state executive committees of the Republi- 
 can, "American," and "North American" Parties, urging united 
 action to defeat the Democratic ticket. They arranged a scheme 
 whereby a joint-ticket of twenty-seven electors was chosen, 
 twenty-six in common, with the names of respective presiden- 
 tial candidates heading the several tickets. The agreement was, 
 in the event of their election, to vote for the respective candi- 
 dates of the above parties in the exact proportion to the popular 
 vote given to each ticket. In the event that the entire vote would 
 elect any one of these three candidates, it was agreed to cast all 
 of it in his favor. This formed a complete union of the opposi- 
 tion strength in Pennsylvania, while it enabled every voter to 
 indicate his preference of the presidential candidates, without 
 any compromise of principles. Cameron was one of the elec- 
 tors. 107 
 
 Many of the Fillmore men lacked enthusiasm for the scheme 
 and at a meeting in Philadelphia on the day before the Union 
 Convention at Harrisburg adopted resolutions repudiating the 
 convention and endorsing the Fillmore electoral ticket. 108 The 
 Republican politicians played up this Fillmore movement as a 
 conspiracy to elect Buchanan, an artifice to mislead honest men 
 to throw away votes which would otherwise go to "Fremont 
 and Freedom." 
 
 After the Union Convention the Republicans redoubled their 
 efforts to carry the state. Cameron, Chase, Truman Smith of 
 Cincinnati, and other political leaders from various parts of the 
 country canvassed the state. They delivered speeches and were 
 authorized to dispense funds wherever they deemed it most 
 judicious, their expenditures not to exceed twenty-five thou- 
 sand dollars. 109 
 
 Buchanan carried Pennsylvania on November fourth by 
 twenty-seven thousand over the Union ticket, but his majority 
 of the total vote was less than one thousand. 110 Several counties, 
 especially in the southeastern section, which were carried by 
 Buchanan in November, polled a Fillmore, or "American," vote 
 of sufficient strength to have changed the election result if these 
 votes had been given to Fremont or the union ticket in accord- 
 
FINAL BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS 157 
 
 ance with the union committee agreement at Harrisburg. 111 It 
 would not be justifiable to adopt the generalization that the 
 votes given to Fillmore proved disastrous to the Fremont cause. 
 Fremont was considered radical by many voters, and there is no 
 available evidence to indicate that those who voted for the con- 
 servative Fillmore would have voted against the conservative 
 candidate Buchanan had there been no "American" Party. 
 
 There was a notable lack of enthusiasm for Fremont in eastern 
 Pennsylvania as contrasted with the western part of the state. 112 
 Some Republican leaders attributed the defeat to "side door 
 transactions" of Forney, chairman of the Democratic State 
 Committee, and J. P. Sanderson, chairman of the "American" 
 State Committee. They sought to obtain a straight "American 
 ticket vote and thus to undercut the effectiveness of the union 
 ticket. 113 Corruption charges were numerous on both sides. 
 
 A few days after the November defeat, Cameron wrote to 
 Weed: "From the first I saw little hopes of Pennsylvania. I saw 
 the error committed in placing the movement in the hands of 
 ignorant and conceited men. The Whigs of this State cannot 
 control a campaign; and they would not permit Democrats to 
 advise or help them." He added that he believed that if he and 
 Weed had met in July and laid complete plans for Pennsyl- 
 vania they could have carried the state. 114 Weed admitted in his 
 reply that "Our organization in your state was sadly neglected. 
 We had feeble men in Philadelphia." He also expressed regret 
 over the Republican Party's loss of Pennsylvania in the October 
 election, and the hope that the senatorship might yet be saved. 115 
 
 Buchanan, on the other hand, had been confident of victory 
 from the beginning. Writing of the issues in the campaign and 
 the national prospects of the Democratic Party, he condemned 
 the "out-lawry" of the Black Republicans committed against 
 fifteen of the states of the Union at their Philadelphia Conven- 
 tion and declared: "We are fighting the battle in this State 
 almost solely on the great issue, with energy and confidence. I 
 do not think there is any reason to apprehend the result, cer- 
 tainly none at the Presidential election, so far as Pennsylvania 
 is concerned." 116 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 
 
 Judge Timothy Ives of Potter County, in the first flush 
 of victory that came as a result of the early returns from 
 his area, in the state elections in October, 1856, was ready 
 to put forth all effort to see that the Republicans should send 
 Cameron to the United States Senate. 1 The final returns of the 
 elections, however, gave the Democrats a legislative majority of 
 three on joint ballot, although their combined opponents had a 
 majority in the senate. Cameron always enjoyed a good political 
 scrap and was not one to back down when the odds seemed 
 stacked against him. He had been a Democrat all of his life ex- 
 cept for his irregularities in 1845, 1855, and 1856. He had stood 
 for certain economic policies though his party leaned heavily 
 in the opposite direction, but many Pennsylvania Democrats held 
 the same views. Could he rely on some Democratic support af- 
 ter the intensity of feeling generated during the recent cam- 
 paign? Would it be possible to obtain the united support of mem- 
 bers of other parties in the legislature? This would be necessary 
 in the face of the Democratic majority. These and many other 
 questions had to be considered in laying the groundwork and 
 formulating the strategy for the campaign. There were Re- 
 publican leaders who for many years, even before the organi- 
 zation of the party, had advocated ardently its principles and 
 who were deserving of such a reward as election to the Senate. 
 Possibly not one of them, however, could command enough 
 Democratic votes, if any. 
 
 The matter of first consideration was to learn what could be 
 expected from the Republicans. After the November election 
 leaders were approached with the scheme of obtaining Demo- 
 cratic votes to supplement the united vote of the other members 
 of the legislature as a means of vindication of their principles 
 from the recent defeat. Wilmot replied that he was glad that 
 
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 159 
 
 Cameron had by his support of Fremont identified himself with 
 those opposed to the extension of slavery. The state senator and 
 the representatives of his district would support Cameron for 
 the United States senatorship. 2 Thaddeus Stevens wrote that 
 he had spoken to several members of the legislature and other 
 influential men, including the governor and the secretary. All 
 agreed at once to tender Cameron the nomination. He told 
 Cameron it would require four Democratic votes and asked if 
 they could be obtained. 3 
 
 John Kunkel informed Cameron that Senator Brodhead was 
 making strenuous exertions in his own behalf, hoping that he 
 would be the compromise candidate of the Democratic caucus, 
 but entertaining little hope of a first-hand choice for re-elec- 
 tion. 4 He (Brodhead) had broken with the Democratic ma- 
 chine of Pennsylvania and had lost favor with Buchanan. As 
 has been seen, Buchanan complained that Brodhead had been 
 one of his warm supporters, but, for some unexplained reason, 
 after he had been elected to the United States Senate he had cast 
 aside those to whom he owed his elevation and lookd to Cameron 
 for direction and leadership. This was before Cameron had left 
 the Democratic Party. Although Brodhead remained with the 
 party he did not regain Buchanan's favor. Kunkel also stated that 
 David Taggart, 5 a former opponent, would now support Cam- 
 eron. He believed that even though the Republicans were the 
 minority party, Cameron could be put in the Senate, with the 
 added admonition "only be sure to secure sufficient Democrats." 
 Judge R. G. White of Wellsboro presumed that the vote of the 
 opposition could easily be united for Cameron but felt that he 
 would encounter difficulty in the Democratic ranks. 6 
 
 The legislature convened the first week in January. The im- 
 portance of this session was fully recognized. A correspondent 
 of the Philadelphia Public Ledger wrote from Harrisburg on 
 January third, on the eve of the assembly: 
 
 The first important power entrusted to this Legislature, in which every 
 man in the State ought to feel interested, is the election of a United 
 States Senator. Pennsylvania, just at this time, occupies a controlling 
 position. With a Pennsylvania President, commanding the power of 
 patronage of the general government, it is of the very first importance 
 that one of the first men of the State should represent us in the Senate, 
 
i6o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 who could act as an exponent of the views of the administration, for at 
 least one of the Pennsylvania Senators must from his position, be looked 
 upon as such. There are men in the Democratic party (presuming that 
 a Democrat will be elected) who are fitted to adorn any public position 
 in which they may be placed. 7 
 
 This letter also reflected the strained relations that had developed 
 during the past two years between Senator William Bigler and 
 President-elect Buchanan. 
 
 The Democrats had a majority of the legislature, but that 
 majority was too small to give them buoyant confidence of suc- 
 cess. They knew of the rumors that Cameron would unite and 
 lead the opposing forces. Just twelve years earlier the Democrats 
 had a substantial majority in the legislature and had anticipated 
 no difficulty in electing their candidate. Cameron had then gained 
 the support of the Whigs and had detached sufficient Democratic 
 votes from that party's nominee to insure his own election. 
 Much of Cameron's planning was now being carried on in a 
 semi-secret manner with the leaders of the opposition groups, 
 and the Democrats had little more than rumor on which to spec- 
 ulate and draw conclusions. Cameron, one of the shrewdest and 
 most sagacious politicians of his day, was active, energetic and 
 resourceful. Would he again be able to build up a majority and 
 defeat the Democrats? 
 
 Forney, who had rendered valiant service for Buchanan and 
 the Democrats as chairman of the state committee, was the lead- 
 ing candidate for the Senate. Buchanan was an earnest, perhaps 
 too earnest, advocate of the election of Forney. 8 His pressure 
 in favor of the latter led critics to charge unwarranted interfer- 
 ence by the President-elect in the political activities of Penn- 
 sylvania. 
 
 On January eighth, the Fennsylvanian — of which Forney was 
 formerly editor and joint proprietor and which was now the of- 
 ficial Buchanan organ in Pennsylvania — published a long edi- 
 torial on the coming senatorial election. In high-sounding phrases 
 it urged the members of the legislature to do their duty and elect 
 a fine, upstanding, tried-and-true Democrat. The writer then 
 launched into the following severe diatribe against Cameron: 
 
 The papers are full of rumors that Cameron will be the opposition 
 
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 161 
 
 candidate. We know not, and care not how this will be. Certain it is 
 that no honest man, of any political organization, whether Abolitionist, 
 Know-Nothing, or Democrat, can contemplate without a blush of shame 
 rising to his cheeks, the idea that he belongs to a political organization, 
 weak enough and base enough, for any purpose, to make such a man as 
 Simon Cameron its candidatae for the office of United States Senator 
 from Pennsylvania. He had no party anywhere among the people. 
 His pursuit of the Senatorship by a tortuous course of intrigue and cor- 
 ruption unparalleled in the annals of politics, through a long series of 
 years, is more like the diseased craving of a monomaniac, than an 
 honorable ambition. His triumph would only serve to demonstrate that 
 corruption, duplicity, intrigue, and chicanery were the true passports to 
 honorable distinction. If the opposition politicians wish to eternally 
 disgrace themselves in the eyes of all the honest members of their or- 
 ganization by supporting Cameron, it is their affair, and they deserve 
 to reap the consequences of their folly. But that any Democrat could 
 be so lost to all feelings of self respect, all sense of shame, all pride of 
 character, and so destitute of all true manliness, as to support him in any 
 contingency, we cannot and will not believe. 9 
 
 Thus Cameron and anyone who might vote for him were con- 
 demned and vilified prior to the election by the official Demo- 
 cratic organ of the state. 
 
 It appeared, in the first days of this session of the legislature, 
 that the senatorship was destined to be a free-for-all contest. 
 The house of representatives nominated thirty-four persons for 
 the office. 10 In truth, most of these nominations were merely 
 honorary. Otherwise, the caucuses might have had difficulty in 
 selecting their nominees. 
 
 The Democratic caucus met on January ninth. Colonel John 
 W. Forney was nominated on the first ballot with thirty-five of 
 the sixty votes cast, after which his nomination was made unan- 
 imous by resolution. 11 An incident connected with the caucus 
 augured ill for the party. General Henry D. Foster, a member 
 of the legislature from Westmoreland County, had served two 
 terms in the national House of Representatives and had strong 
 ambitions for the senatorship. The fact being ascertained that 
 Forney would be the nominee, eight friends of Foster refused 
 to participate in the caucus. The Harrisburg correspondent of 
 the Public Ledger wrote the next day that the failure of these 
 members to participate involved something more serious than 
 mere opposition to Forney. He felt that it had a higher purpose 
 
1 62 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 and was aimed as a blow at Buchanan himself, through whose 
 influence the nomination went to Forney. The bolters urged in 
 justification of their course that it was unwarranted that the 
 President-elect should use his great power and influence in favor 
 of Forney, to the injury of other candidates, who, with a fair 
 field, might have had him at a disadvantage. "It is said," the cor- 
 respondent declared, "that these bolting members are firm in 
 their purpose to resist Forney's election." 12 Foster came to the 
 support of Forney on the day of the election, but without visible 
 cordiality. The undercurrent of rebellion against the President- 
 elect's interference was strong, 13 and, as will be seen, some mem- 
 bers cast their votes for Foster anyway. 
 
 The Republican and "American" members of the legislature, 
 the supposed Cameron coalition, were smarting under the de- 
 feat administered to them in October. They were inclined to 
 attribute that defeat to Forney and generally were disposed to 
 avenge the wrong. Cameron early perceived that disposition and 
 directed his course accordingly. With his exceptional shrewdness 
 as a political manager he believed he could depend upon the 
 opposition's resentment again Forney to support him if he could 
 assure this group of his ability to defeat Forney. The coalition 
 had a majority in the senate, and Cameron had some warm friends 
 in that body, among whom were the presiding officer David 
 Taggart, and Charles B. Penrose of Philadelphia. Penrose was 
 a man of ripe experience in state as well as national affairs, and 
 of great sagacity in politics. He was among those who desired 
 to punish Forney and was quite as earnest in his desire to pro- 
 mote the interests of his friend, General Cameron. 14 
 
 The senate, in the control of the groups allied against the 
 Democrats, refused to go into convention with the house for 
 the election of a Senator until the plans of the coalition had been 
 perfected and the success of its candidate ascertained. 15 Cameron 
 had positive assurance from the Democrats William B. Lebo and 
 G. A. Wagonseller, representatives from Schuylkill, and Sam- 
 uel B. Manear, representative from York that they would vote 
 for him. This information he communicated to Penrose. The 
 Republicans and "Americans" went into caucus on the evening 
 of January twelfth. Penrose shrewdly stated to the body that 
 he had good reason to believe that if they would unite in sup- 
 
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 163 
 
 port of General Cameron a sufficient number of Democratic 
 votes could be commanded to assure his election. The caucus 
 refused to take any action on the subject without positive in- 
 formation as to the defection of the Democrats. Penrose then 
 proposed that the caucus choose three men in whom they had 
 implicit confidence, and whose discretion could be fully trusted; 
 that these men be conducted to the presence of the three Demo- 
 cratic members who would vote for Cameron, and receive the 
 desired assurance and make report at a later meeting of the cau- 
 cus. This was agreed to and the caucus adjorned to meet again 
 the next morning. 10 
 
 Cameron arranged for Lebo, Wagonseller, and Manear to 
 meet the committee from the caucus in his room at Omit's Hotel. 
 The assurance required was given, and the three Democrats 
 pledged their sacred honor that if the opposition members united 
 in the support of Cameron they would give him their votes and 
 elect him. Their names were not to be divulged before the time 
 of election in the convention. The next morning the committee 
 reported their meeting with the three Democrats and the pledges 
 they had obtained. The caucus, still comewhat distrustful, in- 
 stead of giving Cameron a forthright nomination for Senator, 
 adopted a resolution that they would give him a united vote on 
 the first ballot, their obligation not to go beyond that period. 
 There were members of the caucus who were positively hostile 
 to Cameron and supported the resolution with reluctance. How- 
 ever, they were convinced that Cameron had severed his con- 
 nections with the Democratic Party and if elected to the Senate 
 would oppose the administration, and their intensity of feeling 
 against Forney was greater than their hostility to Cameron. 17 
 
 The joint convention to elect a Senator for Pennsylvania as- 
 sembled in the chamber of the house of representatives on Tues- 
 day, January thirteenth. Although he wrote a generation after 
 the historic event occurred, Alexander K. McClure left one of 
 the best accounts of what occurred at this convention: 
 
 There was quiet anxiety on the part of the opposition, and sullen 
 apprehension among the Democrats. There were no boisterous dem- 
 onstrations of any kind. The opposition were hopeful, but not entirely 
 confident, as only three of their number knew where the Democratic 
 votes were to come from, and the Democrats felt that there was some 
 
1 64 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 subtle miasma in the political atmosphere, but they were bewildered in 
 attempting to locate it. . . . 
 
 When the joint convention was called to order the profoundest silence 
 prevailed throughout the vast assemblage, as the hall was crowded to 
 its utmost capacity. When the roll-call began there was no break until 
 nearly half the list had been called. The Democrats generally voted for 
 Forney, but there were a few who gave Foster a complimentary vote, 
 . . . while the opposition members voted solidly for Cameron. When 
 the name of Lebo was reached he startled all the members present, with 
 the exception of the members of the committee who had conferred with 
 the bolting Democrats, by announcing the name of Simon Cameron 
 in distinct tones. 
 
 The vote of Lebo came as a thunderclap from an unclouded sky to 
 the Democrats, and one of their leaders arose and attempted to make 
 an impassioned appeal to the Democratic members to cast a united vote 
 for their candidate, but he was speedily called to order and reason- 
 able quiet was finally restored. The opposition members felt confident 
 that the needed number of Democratic votes would come from some- 
 where, and the Democrats realized that Lebo would not have voted 
 alone for Cameron, and that there must be other Democratic votes yet 
 to come. Maneer's [sic] name was called soon after, and he, in a feeble 
 voice, announced his vote for Cameron. His vote with that of Lebo 
 assured Cameron's election with the united opposition vote and of 
 course the united opposition vote was assured when the defeat of 
 Forney was clearly within their power. There were a few soft hisses, 
 but silence was promptly restored, and the list was called on until nearly 
 the close, when the name of Wagenseller [sic] was announced, and he 
 declared for Cameron in a distinct and defiant tone. 
 
 When the calling of the roll closed, J. Lawrence Getz, speaker of 
 the house, who sat beside Speaker Taggart, rose up and attempted to 
 make a most inflammatory speech, but Taggart, who was a man of 
 powerful physical force, took him by the arm and forced him back into 
 his chair, telling him, in terms loud enough for all to hear, not to make 
 a fool of himself. This comic feature of an occasion that was verging 
 close to tragedy, called out the humor of the opposition members, and 
 while the Democrats stormed, the opposition responded in hearty laugh- 
 ter, and in a few minutes Speaker Taggart announced the election of 
 Cameron, and the adjournment of the convention without delay. 18 
 
 Donald Cameron, who was standing close to a rear window, 
 hoisted the window as soon as the result was announced, sprang 
 to the pavement a few feet below, rushed to Omit's Hotel, where 
 his father was waiting, and informed him of his election. The 
 three Democrats who voted for Cameron were expelled from 
 
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 165 
 
 their hotels and were severely ostracized by the Democrats dur- 
 ing the remainder of the session of the legislature. 19 
 
 The election required but one ballot. Cameron received sixty- 
 seven votes, to fifty-eight for Forney, seven for Foster, and one 
 for William Wilkins. The announcement of the result of the 
 ballot was followed by prolonged applause in the galleries. There 
 was great rejoicing among the Republicans. A salute was fired 
 on Capitol Hill. General Cameron was greeted by his friends 
 with the heartiest congratulations. 20 During the next few days 
 he received many telegrams and his mail was heavy with letters 
 of congratulation. These messages came not only from his friends 
 and adherents but also from a number of his political opponents. 
 Several messages were from persons outside Pennsylvania. 21 
 
 The mortification and indignation of the Democrats at the 
 result of the election were unbounded. The election in itself at 
 almost any other time would not have been viewed as involving 
 such important consequences. Just at this time, however, when 
 the President-elect was about to enter office, when he had ex- 
 pressed his anxiety concerning the election of Colonel Forney, 22 
 plus the fact that the Democrats had a majority in the legislature 
 on joint ballot, the result must be regarded as a severe blow in 
 advance at the incoming Administration. 
 
 The Harrisburg correspondent of the Public Ledger declared 
 that "the election was most adroitly managed on the part of the 
 opposition." He believed that General Cameron was the only 
 man in the state who could have secured the support of the 
 Democrats who bolted to him. Having earlier occupied a prom- 
 inent place in the Democratic Party, there were many old con- 
 nections and associations by which men not politically hostile 
 to him could be led to look with favor upon the idea of his tri- 
 umph. The counties of Schuylkill and York, from which came 
 the Democratic votes to elect him, were supporters of Cameron 
 in the days when he was a Democrat. It is not sufficient to urge 
 hostility to Forney as the sole justification for the action of the 
 bolting Democrats, though Wagonseller did give that as his "rea- 
 son/' 23 The nomination of any other person than Forney by the 
 Democratic caucus would probably not have altered the result. 
 By voting with the friends of Foster the bolters could have pre- 
 vented the election of General Cameron, or by voting deter- 
 
1 66 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 minedly for any other Democrat they could have prevented the 
 election of any person supported by the Republican-American 
 coalition. The correspondent of the Ledger concluded that the 
 election, therefore, could not be regarded as a strict Republican 
 victory, but rather a victory of General Cameron over John W. 
 Forney and James Buchanan, the latter having voluntarily put 
 himself in a position to be defeated. 24 
 
 The Pennsylvania Telegraph 25 of January 20, 1857, carried on 
 the editorial page opinions of the press concerning the election 
 of General Simon Cameron. It devoted several columns to ex- 
 cerpts from numerous papers, primarily Republican and "Amer- 
 ican," in which the greatest satisfaction was manifest at the de- 
 feat of Forney and the election of Cameron. The New York 
 Tribune "rejoiced." Two years earlier when Cameron was new 
 in the party it doubted his sincerity and opposed him. "Since 
 that time he had done much to win the confidence and regard 
 of the Americans and Republicans of the State." The Pittsburgh 
 Chronicle felt that "the rejection of Buchanan's pet, is a signif- 
 icant hint to him that Kansas Must Be VreeP The Philadelphia 
 Evening Bulletin declared: 
 
 We have never known a more general feeling of exultation in a com- 
 munity than that observed everywhere in our streets this afternoon, 
 when it was announced that Simon Cameron had been elected United 
 States Senator over the Democratic nominee John W. Forney. . . . 
 We have no time to comment on this happy result, but we must ex- 
 press our own satisfaction, as well as that of this entire community, 
 with the course of General Foster and his friends, who had the man- 
 liness and courage to resist, not only the dictation of a servile majority 
 in the party caucus, but the dictation also of power in the person of the 
 President elect. 
 
 The North American was amazed that the secret manage- 
 ment of the affair had been so astonishingly perfect; "How so 
 many persons could be in on it, and yet no one else get wind 
 of it, is a mystery." The Pittsburgh Commercial declared the 
 charges of bribery of Messrs. Lebo, Wagonseller, and Manear 
 obtained no countenance from anybody outside the Democratic 
 Party. Cameron was for many years a conspicuous member of 
 that party and still had many warm personal friends in its ranks. 
 The Democratic members who cast their votes for him for 
 
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 167 
 
 United States Senator were of this class. The Miners' Journal 
 praised the election of Cameron over Forney, holding that the 
 Democratic members who voted for Cameron spurned the ig- 
 noble spirit which dictated action at the call of party leaders, and 
 assumed a position in the contest worthy of the highest praise: 
 "We recognize in them representatives who look first at the 
 interests of their State before they consider the demands of petty 
 party drill." It was proposed, at Pinegrove, "to give Mr. Wagon- 
 seller a dinner, for standing by the interests of Pennsylvania, in 
 place of voting for a Pro-Slavery candidate and Free-Trader." 
 Concerning charges that these members were bribed to vote as 
 they did, the writer for the Miners' Journal believed "that the 
 only bribe offered was the interest of their State." 
 
 The editor of the Fennsylvania Telegraph declared the Harris- 
 burg Patriot and Union to be denouncing the Democrats who 
 refused to vote for Colonel Forney, and bespattering Simon 
 Cameron "with all the blackguard epithets its venal malignity 
 can command." The Patriot and Union was profuse in its lauda- 
 tions of Forney, expressing a desire to see him in the President's 
 cabinet, and quoting the New York Mirror to the effect that 
 Forney would be appointed Postmaster General. 
 
 The indignation and chagrin of the Democrats at the result 
 of the election were naturally unbounded, and the bolters were 
 denounced without stint. The Pennsylvanian y on the day follow- 
 ing the election, declared, "Three members elected by the Demo- 
 cratic party and honored by its confidence have earned an im- 
 mortality of infamy by basely betraying their constituents and 
 their party. . . . They have betrayed the Democracy as Judas 
 betrayed his master." Continuing, the writer referred to Mr. 
 Forney as having been "strickened [sic] down by the shameless 
 treason of three wretches, whose venal hearts are dead to every 
 ennobling sentiment, and who will be remembered hereafter 
 only to be despised." 26 
 
 Charges of corruption and bribery were made on both sides. 
 Such charges are always difficult to prove. The three Democrats 
 who voted for Cameron stayed in Harrisburg during the re- 
 mainder of the session of the legislature, suffering under the 
 ostracism of their fellows. They were not re-elected, and, while 
 Manear and Wagonseller dropped from view, Lebo appeared 
 
1 68 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 again and again in friendly relations with Cameron. In 1861 
 Lebo took H. F. Shoemaker, son of his friend John W. Shoe- 
 maker of Schuykill Haven, to Washington to see General Cam- 
 eron, who in turn obtained from Lincoln an appointment for 
 him as cadet-at-large to Annapolis. Soon after this favor was 
 granted Lebo received appointment, by Cameron's hand, as a 
 Major of the United States Army on the staff of General J. S. 
 McClernand; and young Shoemaker was enabled to join the 
 same force with rank of first lieutenant. 27 Thus it may be said, 
 if so considered, Cameron paid his debt to Lebo for services 
 rendered in 1857. 
 
 The Democrats also were charged with corrupting members 
 of the legislature. Cameron preserved notes of evidence pre- 
 sented to him of efforts to obtain votes for Forney by bribery, 
 either by money or by offer of place. Included in the evidence 
 are names of the subscription list of those contributing sums of 
 five hundred to one thousand dollars to a fund to be used to 
 influence members of the legislature. New York was said to be 
 ready to pour in one hundred thousand dollars to secure the 
 election of Forney. 28 Undoubtedly much of this "evidence" 
 had to do with the elections in the fall rather than directly with 
 the senatorial election in January. Forney, it must be remem- 
 bered, was chairman of the Democratic State Committee, and 
 huge sums were raised by him for Democratic campaign pur- 
 poses. 
 
 The President pro tempore of the United States Senate pre- 
 sented the credentials of Cameron to that body on January six- 
 teenth, 29 and on March fourth he was duly qualified and was 
 administered the oath along with the other new Senators. 30 
 Things were not as placid as this simple recital may indicate. The 
 Democrats were not ready to accept Cameron's election sub- 
 missively. An old friend of Cameron wrote suggesting a public 
 demonstration of the Cameron supporters against the antago- 
 nistic activities of his opponents. Cameron replied thanking him 
 for the consolation contained in his message, but, as was so 
 characteristic of him, said that he did not see that any good 
 could result to the cause in which they were engaged from a 
 public demonstration and therefore preferred not to have it 
 made. 31 He wanted to let by-gone unpleasantnesses fade from the 
 
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 169 
 
 memory as soon as possible rather than to stimulate hostility by 
 openly carrying on a feud. He even refused to accept an in- 
 vitation to a March fourth celebration in Pennsylvania on the 
 ground that he should be in Washington on that day, the day 
 of Buchanan's inauguration, and feared that being absent with- 
 out a good excuse might give offense to Buchanan. 32 Therefore, 
 Cameron was present for the inaugural ceremonies. 
 
 On March sixth, Bigler, by request, presented the Senate with 
 papers signed by fifty-nine members of the legislature of Penn- 
 sylvania questioning the right of his colleague, Cameron, to a seat 
 in that body. The papers were in the form of protests, containing 
 certain points which they asked to be considered as affecting the 
 legality of his election. Bigler asked to have the papers laid on 
 the table until the committees should have been properly or- 
 ganized, at which time he would request the reference of the 
 papers to the Committee on the Judiciary. Cameron arose and 
 said that it was his wish that the matter be investigated as early 
 as possible and as fully as possible, adding: "I hope the Senate 
 will indulge my colleague in having the papers referred to the 
 Committee on the Judiciary at the very moment committees 
 are appointed, and if he does not make such a motion, I shall do 
 so myself." 33 On the ninth, the standing committees were ap- 
 pointed and, upon the motion of Bigler, the above-mentioned 
 papers were referred. 
 
 Two days later Senator Judah P. Benjamin, from the Com- 
 mittee on the Judiciary, made a report and asked that the com- 
 mittee be discharged from further consideration of the subject 
 of alleged irregularities and illegalities in the election of Cameron. 
 The committee reported that the grounds for the protests were: 
 first, that there was not a concurrent majority of each house in 
 favor of the candidate declared to be elected; second, the senate 
 did not comply with the requirements of the state law by ap- 
 pointing a teller and making a nomination of persons to fill said 
 office, and give notice of such at least one day previous to 
 the meeting of the convention. In addition to these there was 
 a third protest presented by members of the Pennsylvania house 
 of representatives that Cameron's election was procured, "as 
 they are informed and believe," by corrupt and unlawful means, 
 involving certain members of that body. They requested the 
 
1 7 o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 United States Senate to order an investigation, not only into the 
 irregularity of the election but also into the charges therein pre- 
 sented in order to afford an opportunity to submit the proof 
 upon which they rested. 
 
 The committee was unanimously of the opinion that of the 
 first two grounds of protest no facts were presented tending in 
 the slightest degree to impair the validity of the election of Cam- 
 eron. In relation to the third protest — the charge of use of cor- 
 rupt and unlawful means — the committee declared it could not 
 recommend that the prayer for senatorial investigation be 
 granted, as the allegations were entirely too vague and indefinite. 
 Not a single fact or circumstance was detailed as a basis for the 
 general charge nor was it even alleged that Cameron participated 
 in the use of corrupt means, or had any knowledge of their ex- 
 istence. The committee, under the circumstances, did not con- 
 sider it consistent with propriety or with the dignity of the 
 Senate to send out a roving commission in search of proofs of 
 fraud in order to deprive one of its members of a seat to which 
 he was prima -facia entitled, especially since the parties alleging 
 fraud and corruption were themselves armed with ample powers 
 for investigation. If, on investigation, the charges should be 
 proved and if they believed the character of Cameron so in- 
 volved that he should not be a Senator, the result could be re- 
 ported by the members of the Pennsylvania legislature and the 
 Senate could take further action. 34 
 
 Senator George E. Pugh of Ohio, a member of the commit- 
 tee, submitted a minority report contending that the charges 
 involved the honor of the Senate and ought to be inquired into. 
 Senator Andrew Pickens Butler of South Carolina, also of the 
 committee, thought it the business of the Pennsylvania legislature 
 to purge itself, if corrupt, instead of applying to the United 
 States Senate for "medication." Action on the resolution for dis- 
 charge of the committee from further consideration of the sub- 
 ject was delayed for two days, chiefly by Bigler. Finally, with 
 reservations, Bigler withdrew his opposition to the resolution 
 and it was adopted. 35 
 
 Cameron received congratulations from his friends in the 
 Senate and throughout the country. Thurlow Weed wrote that 
 
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 171 
 
 his triumph in Washington was almost as great as his earlier one 
 in Harrisburg. 36 
 
 General Cameron entered upon the duties of his second term 
 in the Senate at the same time that Buchanan assumed the duties 
 of President. Cameron had first entered the Senate as Buchanan's 
 successor when the latter had become secretary of state in the 
 administration of President Polk. In both 1845 and 1857 he was 
 elected in the face of Buchanan's opposition. In both instances, 
 he proved a thorn in the side of Buchanan. Although they once 
 had many common interests, 37 they were as unlike as day and 
 night, and the wonder is that their friendship was maintained 
 so long. They differed in temperament, in taste, in methods em- 
 ployed, and in the trend of their intellectual forces. Buchanan 
 was studious, conservative, and trained in statesmanship in its 
 severest school. He commanded respect rather than affection 
 from his associates. Cameron was aggressive, and tended to look 
 to the end to be attained rather than the means to be employed. 
 He cherished the warmest attachment for his friends. Buchanan 
 was trained in the Federalist school though he later accepted 
 the principles of the Democrats with sincerity and adhered 
 to the party unfalteringly. He lacked the qualities of keen per- 
 ception and the prompt action necessary to leadership and so 
 greatly needed before the end of his administration. Cameron, 
 with but few claims to statesmanship, was a consummate poli- 
 tician. He had meager formal education, compared with Bu- 
 chanan, yet he was a man of broad intellectual force and capa- 
 ble of employing his faculties to the uttermost when the occasion 
 demanded it. He could be patient and conservative, or keen and 
 aggressive as occasion demanded, and when new problems arose 
 which culminated in the Civil War he displayed vastly greater 
 adaptability to new conditions than did Buchanan. Buchanan 
 believed in the resolutions of 1798, known to have come from 
 the pens of Jefferson and Madison, and invested them with a 
 measure of sanctity. Cameron, in his eminently practical way, 
 never paused over traditions and records of the past when con- 
 fronted by new conditions and new necessities demanding ac- 
 tion. He was inclined to be conciliatory and was ready to meet 
 every new problem in a practical way. When the war came 
 he was among the foremost of the governmental officials to de- 
 
172 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 clare that slavery must be overthrown. 38 Policies which he ad- 
 vocated, and which were used as excuses for ousting him from 
 the Cabinet, were a few months later adopted by the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Buchanan's effort to reward Forney in 1857 for his political 
 services by giving him the senatorship failed because of Cam- 
 eron. The President either could not or would not give Forney 
 another place that he would accept. He was offered the Naval 
 Office in Philadelphia, or the Consulate at Liverpool, both of 
 which he refused on the ground that he was already committed 
 to two old friends of Buchanan for these posts. 39 Buchanan had 
 previously agreed that he should have the Washington Union, 
 with the fortune that would come from congressional printing, 
 but Forney's enemies had blocked this move. 
 
 In July Forney announced through the press that he would 
 return to journalism, and appealed to his friends to support him 
 in the venture. The Press was established the next month osten- 
 sibly to support Buchanan. The President did not aid him with 
 public printing as Forney had expected so the friendship and 
 loyalty was soon replaced by distrust and dissatisfaction. Forney 
 joined forces with the anti-Lecomptonites against the Admin- 
 istration; 40 and by i860 he was on friendly relations with Sen- 
 ator Cameron, had joined the Republican Party, and had resumed 
 his former position as clerk of the House of Representatives. A 
 year later he became secretary of the Senate and continued in 
 that position until 1868. After two decades with the Republican 
 Party Forney returned to the Democrats. In the meantime he 
 had been a supporter of Cameron, and Cameron had retired 
 from the Senate in 1877 and directed the election of his son, 
 James Donald ("Don"), to succeed him. 
 
 In the late eighteen-fifties, when Forney broke with the Ad- 
 ministration, one of his contentions was that Buchanan's sub- 
 serviency to the South prevented his appointment. He also de- 
 clared that the President's southern leanings resulted in refusal 
 to mete out "justice" to Kansas, the point on which alone, For- 
 ney said, Pennsylvania had been carried. Forney attributed the 
 South's enmity to him to the fairness of his work when, as clerk 
 of the House of Representatives, he presided during the long 
 struggle for the election of speaker in 1 855-1 856. 41 In 1857 
 
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 173 
 
 Cameron observed to an old friend: "There are wonderful 'swaps 
 and changes' in this world as poor Forney will find out." 42 From 
 the above account of Forney's career after his defeat in 1857, 
 it appears that he must have taken a leaf from the book of a 
 practical politician. 
 
 The regular triennial gubernatorial contest in Pennsylvania 
 formally got under way with the meeting of the Democratic 
 State Convention in Harrisburg on March second and third. 
 William F. Packer of Lycoming County was nominated for 
 governor. Ellis Lewis and Nimrod Strickland were nominated 
 for the offices of judge of the supreme court and canal com- 
 missioner respectively. A series of resolutions was adopted in 
 which the Democrats pledged themselves to support the wise 
 conservatism of the first Pennsylvania President, endorsed the 
 nominations for the state officers, deprecated the recent election 
 of Cameron to the United States Senate, and complimented 
 Forney on party usefulness. 43 The appointment of Judge Jere- 
 miah S. Black of the Pennsylvania supreme court, as United 
 States Attorney-General in Buchanan's Cabinet and the resig- 
 nation of Judge Ellis Lewis from the court necessitated another 
 session of the Democratic convention. It assembled in Harrisburg 
 on June ninth and nominated for the court James Thompson of 
 Erie County and William Strong of Berks County. 44 
 
 The Republicans and "American" Union State Convention 
 assembled in Harrisburg late in March. Wilmot was nominated 
 for governor on the second ballot amid great enthusiasm. James 
 Veech and Joseph L. Lewis were selected for the court posi- 
 tions and William Millward for canal commissioner. The con- 
 vention adopted a series of strong antislavery resolutions, con- 
 demning in strong terms the late decision of the Supreme Court 
 of the United States in the Dred Scott Case, asserting the power 
 of Congress over the territories, and declaring unwillingness 
 to abridge the rights of any class of citizens. 45 The "Americans" 
 who would not make union with the Republicans held a belated 
 convention in June and nominated Isaac Hazelhurst of Phila- 
 delphia, to carry their flag for the governorship. 46 
 
 The campaign was not spectacular. There was very little 
 fanfare. Cameron, in so far as he participated, supported Wilmot 
 and his ticket. Wilmot wrote, near the end of the campaign, 
 
i 7 4 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 thanking him for his expressions of friendship and for his con- 
 tribution (of two hundred dollars) towards the campaign. 47 
 The Pittsburgh Gazette declared that by mid-summer: 
 "The contest in Pennsylvania is narrowed down to a struggle 
 between the friends of Slavery extension and its opponents. 
 Packer represents one principle, and Wilmot the other." 48 Some 
 persons, remembering Wilmot as somewhat lukewarm on pro- 
 tection at an earlier period, raised the tariff issue. He answered 
 the question very satisfactorily. He regretted that the tariff 
 policy could not "be wholly removed from party conflict and 
 placed upon a permanent and reasonable basis." He opposed rates 
 so high that they would result in cutting off revenue but declared 
 he favored "a policy of such discriminations as would afford 
 adequate and ample protection to American interests and Amer- 
 ican labor." 49 He was not so strong a protectionist as Cameron, 
 but certainly was not a free-trader. 
 
 The October election gave the Democrats an unusually large 
 majority. This election, by the way, marked the last time for 
 many years that the Democrats were successful in a state election 
 in Pennsylvania. Packer had a majority of nearly forty-three 
 thousand over Wilmot, and more than fourteen thousand six 
 hundred majority over the combined votes of Wilmot and Ha- 
 zelhurst. The Democratic candidates for judge and canal com- 
 missioner were swept in by majorities of almost equal propor- 
 tions. They likewise gained control of both branches of the leg- 
 islature with a total of eighty-nine seats to their opponents' forty- 
 four seats. It is perhaps noteworthy that the Republican, or 
 fusion, vote for governor fell off only thirteen hundred, while 
 the Democratic was reduced forty-two thousand from the votes 
 cast for the candidates of the respective parties for president the 
 previous fall. 50 
 
 The year 1857 is memorable in the political career of Simon 
 Cameron as a year of triumph over his adversaries. He returned 
 to the United States Senate and to an atmosphere pleasing to his 
 temperament, as he often remarked. He continued to exercise 
 leadership in Pennsylvania political affairs, but, from his position 
 of honor and dignity in the Senate, he was largely removed from 
 the hurly- burly of petty political disputes within the state. These 
 matters could be left to his lieutenants. 
 
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 175 
 
 This year was also memorable as the beginning of a period 
 of great distress. In spite of many evidences of prosperity, the 
 financial state of the country was far from satisfactory. By mid- 
 summer complaints of scarcity of money and hard times were 
 general. Before the end of the summer failures of business estab- 
 lishments and banking institutions were rife throughout the 
 country at large. As disaster followed disaster panic swept the 
 country, becoming worse as fall advanced. Late in September 
 the Bank of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia, closed its doors, and 
 soon specie payments were suspended by the banks that were 
 able to remain open. Under the existing laws of Pennsylvania 
 suspension of specie payments would have led to a general for- 
 feiture of bank charters. However, this drastic move was pre- 
 vented by the prompt action of Governor Pollock. So severe 
 was the crisis that Governor Pollock called a special session of 
 the general assembly to pass measures of relief. 51 He directed the 
 enactment of a law legalizing the suspension of specie payments 
 for an indefinite period. 52 
 
 Wilmot in the midst of his campaign deplored the financial 
 troubles, which, by the closing of business and manufacturing 
 enterprises, was causing so much suffering among thousands of 
 honest and industrious workers. 53 The sound condition of Cam- 
 eron's Bank of Middletown has already been noted. It weathered 
 the storm. His letters from business and political friends during 
 this period are burdened with the tragedy of depression which 
 extended into all areas of the state and affected all classes. 54 
 
 Returning to a place in the United States Senate, General 
 Cameron did not find it to be a body of quiet dignity, as he had 
 expected from his experiences of a decade earlier. The depres- 
 sion was already taking sever toll of business enterprises and 
 resulting in much misery among the people. Petitions for relief 
 were being sent to Congress as well as to the state legislatures. 
 The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act had been but the first 
 of a series of events, both national and local, that increased agi- 
 tation on the slavery issue. Problems developed which were 
 fraught with explosive potentialities for the Democratic Party, 
 and for harmonious relations of North and South. Tension ran 
 high on both sides — too high — bursting forth at times in angry 
 charges and even physical violence. Cameron had held the South 
 
176 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 in high regard since his first trip to the deep South in 183 1. Dur- 
 ing his first term in the Senate, he had made several warm friends 
 among the Senators from the southern states. Early in his second 
 term he wrote to an old friend in Pennsylvania, who also had 
 experienced pleasant associations with southern Senators, mourn- 
 ing that "the South of today is not the South of Calhoun, Dixon, 
 Lewis, and their compeers." 55 
 
 The Kansas question loomed as one of the largest problems 
 which confronted the first session of the thirty-fifth Congress. 
 Popular sovereignty had been reduced to little more than a sham 
 in Kansas, in the matter of voting on the Lecompton Constitu- 
 tion. Governor Robert J. Walker went to Washington in the 
 late fall of 1857, and, because his rejection of fraudulent pro- 
 slavery votes had given the legislature of Kansas to free-state 
 men, found that he had lost favor with the Administration, and 
 resigned. Buchanan in his Annual Message of December eighth 
 (1857) upheld the work of the Lecompton Convention. 56 Two 
 months later he sent to Congress a copy of the already dis- 
 credited Lecompton Constitution, and a message recommending 
 the admission of Kansas under that organic act, declaring "Do 
 mestic peace will be the happy consequence of its admission 
 Douglas broke with the Administration and denounced with all 
 the vigor at his command this travesty upon popular sovereign- 
 ty. 58 Cameron was highly amused at the lack of political sagacity 
 on the part of the President. 59 
 
 Even before the President submitted the Lecompton Consti- 
 tution to Congress, resolutions had been offered to the Pennsyl- 
 vania senate, instructing the Senators from Pennsylvania to resist 
 the admission of Kansas into the Union until its constitution had 
 received the unqualified sanction of a majority of the bona fide 
 residents. Amid much confusion these resolutions were referred 
 to a special committee. 60 The resolutions were opposed to the 
 policy of the President but were in line with the views expressed 
 by Governor Packer ten days earlier in his inaugural address. It 
 was more than a month after the Kansas Resolutions were offered 
 before they were reported back to the senate. The majority of 
 the committee favored the Lecompton Constitution and urged 
 the speedy admission of Kansas under it. A motion to postpone 
 action, in order to allow the minority of the committee to re- 
 
 "57 
 
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 177 
 
 port, was defeated by the united vote of the Democrats. Again 
 confusion practically broke up the meeting. Finally, on March 
 twenty-third, the Pennsylvania senate passed resolutions favor- 
 ing the Lecompton Constitution by a vote of eighteen to eleven. 
 Only one Democrat voted in the negative. 61 
 
 In the meantime great anti-Lecompton meetings were being 
 held in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and other places 
 throughout the state. These were addressed not only by Repub- 
 lican leaders but also by some leading Democrats, among them 
 the man who had contributed most in time and service to the 
 election of President Buchanan — John W. Forney. 62 The senti- 
 ment was so strong that a call was issued for the meeting of an 
 Anti-Lecompton State Convention in Harrisburg on July eighth, 
 to nominate persons for state offices. It was proposed to include 
 all parties of the opposition and it was believed the prospects 
 were good for a thorough and successful union. 63 
 
 Exciting times were had in Congress during the debates on 
 the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution. In 
 the House on February fifth, near the end of a session that lasted 
 until almost six-thirty in the morning, a violent personal alter- 
 cation occurred between Representatives Lawrence M. Keitt 
 of South Carolina and Galusha A. Grow of Pennsylvania in 
 which the former was the aggressor. Great confusion resulted 
 as members from every part of the House rushed to the scene 
 of conflict. Both men apoligized for their conduct at the next 
 session. 64 Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, a member of the 
 House, wrote: 
 
 We shall be beaten on the admission of Kansas. The northern Demo- 
 crats do not stand up as they have been counted; and our mean South- 
 ern men will not stay in their places. Last night we had a battle-royal 
 in the House. Thirty men at least were engaged in the fisticuff. For- 
 tunately no weapons were used. . . . Nobody was hurt, . . . but bad 
 feeling was produced by it. It was the first sectional fight ever had on 
 the floor, I think, and if any weapons had been on hand it would prob- 
 ably have been a bloody one. All things here are tending to bring my 
 mind to the conclusion that the Union cannot or will not last long. 65 
 
 The political atmosphere at the Capital was highly charged. 
 A few weeks after this skirmish in the House a controversy de- 
 veloped in the Senate between Cameron and James S. Green of 
 
178 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Missouri, a member of the Committee on Territories. This oc- 
 curred on March fifteenth and it too came during a long session 
 which did not adjourn until past six o'clock on Tuesday morn- 
 ing. The night had been consumed by innumerable motions to 
 postpone, and to adjourn, on which the yeas and nays were 
 taken. Roll calls were also demanded from time to time to de- 
 termine whether a quorum were present. The Democrats had 
 held a caucus and agreed upon their course of action on the 
 Kansas question. The opposition had not been informed of this 
 and Cameron felt that they should be given opportunity to con- 
 fer on the matter. He resented the apparent determination of 
 the administration group to push the debate, declaring that the 
 whole matter was being "carried out in a dictatorial and im- 
 proper manner." Green directed the course of the bill as brought 
 from the committee and was inclined to be rather arbitrary. 
 Cameron, who seldom offended anyone in the Senate, endeav- 
 ored to be concilatory in the early part of the debate, but as 
 the night dragged on and the administration members showed 
 determination to force their advantage over the minority he too 
 became controversial. In the heat of debate, he and Green each 
 gave the other the lie. Vice President Breckinridge interfered 
 with decision and prevented a personal encounter. Green de- 
 clared, however, that "as to any question of veracity between 
 that Senator and myself, in five minutes after the Senate ad- 
 journs, we can settle that." 66 This threat was later withdrawn 
 by Green and the next day both gentlemen made the usual apol- 
 ogies and explanations before the Senate. 67 
 
 Preston Brooks' assault on Charles Sumner was fresh in the 
 minds of everyone. Many Northerners felt that the attitude of 
 the Southern members of both Senate and House was becoming 
 more threatening as they heaped personal abuse upon Northern 
 opponents. It was apparently out of this situation that the Chand- 
 ler-Wade-Cameron compact grew. Zachariah Chandler of Mich- 
 igan, Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio, and Simon Cameron, in order 
 to put an end to the "chronic insolence" (as they termed it) of 
 the comparatively few aggressors from the South, drew up a 
 compact to the effect that in the event of any Republican Sena- 
 tor's receiving gross personal abuse they would make his cause 
 their own and, if need be (in the precise words of the compact) 
 
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 179 
 
 "carry the quarrel into the coffin." 68 Some years after this event 
 the Senators concerned, as a testimonial of the times and their 
 method of dealing with some of the difficulties besetting them, 
 executed a memorandum in regard to this agreement and placed 
 their signatures to it. 09 This document was for the purpose of 
 showing later generations what it once cost to favor liberty and 
 to express such sentiments in the highest places of official life in 
 the United States. It was the claim of the signers that this ar- 
 rangement produced a cessation of the irritations which induced 
 them to make the compact, and when it became known that 
 some Northern Senators were ready to fight for sufficient cause 
 the tone of their assailants was at once modified. 
 
 On March twenty-third, the bill for the admission of Kansas 
 under the Lecompton Constitution passed the Senate by thirty- 
 three to twenty-five. 70 Cameron was paired with Senator Jeffer- 
 son Davis of Mississippi and therefore his vote was not registered. 
 He was much criticized for this action but explained his posi- 
 tion both on the floor of the Senate and in a letter to a friend 
 in such a manner as should have been satisfactory to everyone 
 familiar with the practice of pairing. His views on the Kansas 
 question were known beyond the shadow of speculation through 
 his speeches and letters. He declared that he desired very much 
 to vote on the question against the admission of Kansas under 
 the Lecompton Constitution, but was prevented by the severe 
 indisposition of the Senator from Mississippi. Davis was ill but 
 was determined to go to the Senate to vote, against the advice 
 of his physician and in spite of the fears of his family. To pre- 
 vent him from doing so, a mutual friend went to Cameron with 
 an appeal. It was a stormy day and Cameron's attitude towards 
 the Lecompton Constitution being well known he agreed to the 
 pair, to keep a friend from endangering his life. He asserted that 
 the loss of one vote on each side could in no manner affect the 
 result. There had been long years of friendly intercourse be- 
 tween Cameron and Davis, and Cameron felt that he could not, 
 under the circumstances, refuse. 71 It was but an act of courtesy 
 and friendship. He declared that while he had omitted no ex- 
 ertion to defeat the "Lecompton swindle" and he should faith- 
 fully and zealously act with his party for the common good of 
 the country, he would not permit himself to be behind his op- 
 
i8o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 ponents "in the courtesies and civilities which deprive politics 
 of their harshness and invite men of kindly feelings into the ser- 
 vice of the state where such courtesies will produce no injury to 
 the public." 72 
 
 When the Senate bill was under consideration in the House, 
 William Montgomery, a Pennsylvania Democrat, offered an 
 amendment which provided, among other things, that inasmuch 
 as it was greatly disputed whether the Lecompton Constitution 
 was fairly made and ratified and whether it expressed the will 
 of the people of Kansas, it be resubmitted to the people of that 
 state. This amendment was carried by one hundred twenty yeas 
 to one hundred twelve nays. 73 Twenty-two Democrats and six 
 "Americans" voted with the Republicans for the amendment, 
 while one hundred four Democrats and eight "Americans" voted 
 against it. 74 
 
 The Senate was unwilling to accept the amendment. A con- 
 ference committee was appointed out of which came the English 
 Compromise, named for William H. English of Indiana. He 
 had voted for the Montgomery amendment and as a member of 
 the conference committee formulated this compromise. It was 
 charged that the English Compromise, providing for a large 
 government land grant to Kansas, was offered as a bribe to in- 
 duce the people of Kansas to accept the Lecompton Constitution. 
 This measure was presented to both House and Senate and after 
 some days of debate was passed by both on April thirtieth. 75 
 Cameron voted against the English Compromise, declaring: 
 
 I disapprove of the proposition now before the Senate, much more than 
 I did the original attempt to force on the people of Kansas a constitution 
 which they were unwilling to take. The original bill was a plain propo- 
 sition, for which men might have voted honestly, without subjecting 
 their motives to censure. This I look upon as a very different affair. 
 This, to my mind, is a trick to impose upon weak men, or to enable 
 corrupt men to make the impression upon their constituents at home 
 that they have been acting honestly. 76 
 
 A. H. Reeder of Pennsylvania, who for a time had been Gov- 
 ernor of Kansas Territory, wrote to Cameron that he considered 
 the Administration stupid to pass the English Bill. He believed 
 the Administration's eyes would soon be opened to the fact that 
 it would have been better to have permitted the matter to fall 
 
78 
 
 RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 181 
 
 between the Houses, or even to have carried the Lecompton 
 Constitution pure and simple. 77 Administration newspapers bla- 
 zoned the English Compromise as a victory for the President, but 
 when a vote was taken in Kansas on August second, in accord- 
 ance with the act, eleven thousand three hundred votes were cast 
 against the land proposal of the compromise measure, and less 
 than eighteen hundred for it. Not one of the twenty-eight coun 
 ties of Kansas gave a majority for the Lecompton Constitution. 
 It was thus effectively determined that slavery would not exist 
 in Kansas. The Lecompton fight left a breach in the Democratic 
 Party that was fraught with dire consequences in succeeding 
 state and national elections. 
 
 If Cameron was but a lukewarm Republican at the time of his 
 election, with no genuine attachment to the principles of the 
 party, as many members of the Republican caucus of January, 
 1837, believed, his loyalty was strengthened by his experiences 
 in the early months of the next session of Congress. He wrote to 
 a friend in Harrisburg in March, 1858, that the Republican Party 
 was strong in its principles, but misrepresentation of its nature 
 and purposes in the North had lost it much support in that sec- 
 tion. Again by misrepresentation the whole South had been ar- 
 rayed against it, but "three million white non-slaveholders of the 
 South must be taught by our moderation and firmness that we 
 are battling for their rights." He expected to see the Union 
 saved by the Republican Party: 
 
 All men all over the Union who live by the labor of their heads or their 
 hands, and who wish to make labor respectable and respected, and who 
 believe that all men are entitled to such stations as their worth and their 
 capacity enables [sic] them to reach will join it. 
 
 He declared his belief that no earthly power could prevent this 
 party from controlling the government after i860. 79 
 
 To the same friend, Senator Cameron set forth his attitude 
 towards slavery. He abhorred the institution in every shape, but 
 was not willing to enter upon a crusade to liberate the slaves 
 where they existed under constitutional right. They must not 
 be interfered with there. It would be sufficient for him if he 
 could aid in keeping the blighting influence of slavery from land 
 still free and prevent its toleration in his own state. On this ques- 
 
1 82 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 tion, as on others before Congress in the four years prior to the 
 war between the states, Cameron must be ranked as a conserva- 
 tive Republican. He saw that radical Republican policies would 
 increase and perpetuate sectional strife. He wanted peace be- 
 tween the sections and labored towards concilation. 
 
 Difficulties had arisen with the Mormons in the Territory of 
 Utah. The Administration sought authority to raise additional 
 military forces for the purpose of quelling the disturbances. 
 When measures to provide for the organization of volunteer 
 regiments for that object came before the Senate a lengthy de- 
 bate ensued. The Republicans, generally, raised strong objection 
 to the bill from the fear that the President would employ the 
 army improperly in Kansas in order to carry his policies there. 
 Senator John P. Hale of New Hampshire declared that because 
 he was personally in favor of civilization, law, and liberty regu- 
 lated by law, and apprehensive as to the way these troops might 
 be used, he was "against strengthening the hand of this Execu- 
 tive." 80 
 
 Distrust of the President was shared by most of the Repub- 
 licans in the Senate. Cameron, however, declared that "when 
 the country is engaged in war I cannot refuse to allow the Ad- 
 ministration to have such troops as they think necessary to pro- 
 tect the honor and the interests of the country." 81 In the course 
 of the debates on this measure Cameron declared that he favored 
 the increase as a temporary measure, but that nothing could in- 
 duce him to add to the permanent standing army of the coun- 
 try. 82 The Army Bill passed forty-one to thirteen. Every "Amer- 
 ican" voted for the bill as did also the Democrats. Cameron was 
 one of four Republicans who supported it. The others were 
 Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, William H. Seward of New 
 York, and James Harlan of Iowa. The negative vote was entire- 
 ly Republican. 83 
 
 The lowering of the Tariff in 1857 to a level twenty per cent 
 below that of the Walker Tariff of a decade earlier was dis- 
 heartening to the coal and iron interests of Pennsylvania, but 
 the depression which began with the panic of 1857 was disastrous 
 to these industries. From early manhood, Cameron had been a 
 strong advocate of the interests of working-men. He believed 
 the tariff argument that their welfare could be best preserved 
 
RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE 183 
 
 through generous protection of American industry by govern- 
 mental legislation. American labor, he held, should be pro- 
 tected from competition with the pauper labor of the European 
 countries. This was theory, of course, and it was often hard to 
 prove that tariff rates affected the wages of laborers in protected 
 industries. 
 
 As during his first term in the Senate, Cameron's daily cor- 
 respondence was heavy with letters and petitions from iron- 
 masters, coal operators, and laborers in these industries, implor- 
 ing favorable action of Congress. 84 These petitions he presented 
 in great numbers to the Senate, and had them referred to the 
 Committee on Finance. To many of his correspondents he wrote 
 personal letters on the subject. To W. D. Lewis of Philadelphia 
 he expressed his belief that there would be protection for coal 
 and iron after i860 and expectation that the 1858 October elec- 
 tions in Pennsylvania would have a great effect on Republican 
 Party success in i860. 85 
 
 On the occasion of presenting to the Senate one such petition 
 of laboring men engaged in the manufacture of iron in Penn- 
 sylvania, he made extended remarks on the subject. These were 
 intended to enlighten the Senators and also to point out to the 
 petitioners an available remedy to correct the situation. He 
 pointed out that the laboring class seemed to think that the 
 Congress of the United States could relieve them of all their 
 troubles. There never had been a time, in the history of the iron 
 business of Pennsylvania, when there was as much real distress 
 among the laboring men. This petition was not a complaint on 
 the part of capitalists. Men of capital and fortune could take 
 care of themselves; labor, poverty, indigence and want always 
 needed sympathy and protection. The laboring people in some 
 of the counties of Pennsylvania, where iron and coal composed 
 almost the sole industries, were entirely idle. These were the 
 persons who complained and looked to Congress to relieve them. 
 Cameron had told them that they had the power in their own 
 hands: 
 
 The laboring men of this country are powerful for good always. They 
 do control when they think proper, and I think the time is coming when 
 they will control the politics of the country. I tell them that before they 
 can get proper protection they must change the majority in this Senate, 
 
i8 4 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 they must change the majority in the other House of Congress, and above 
 all they must change the occupant of the White House. ... In place of 
 gentlemen who sneer when we talk about protection, they must send men 
 here who know something of the usefullness of the laboring man. 
 
 Hitherto they have not acted as if they cared for their own inter- 
 ests; while they talked about a tariff which would guard their labor 
 from competition with the pauper labor of Europe they would go to 
 the elections under some ward leader and vote for men to represent 
 them here and elsewhere who cared only for party drill, and had no 
 interests above party sucess. This system they must change if they hope 
 for success. I think the laboring men of Pennsylvania, at least, are now 
 beginning to put their shoulders to the wheel, and I believe they will 
 make such a noise in next October, as will alarm the gentlemen all over 
 the country who laugh at them. ... I have said that these people have 
 the power in their hands — I am speaking to them now — and I wish 
 them to exercise the power they have. I cannot help them, much as I 
 desire to do so, nor can any of their friends here; but when they go to 
 work, as men determined to succeed should do, I have no doubt they will 
 get protection. . . . Let them exercise the power wisely, and they will 
 no longer be without plenty of work and good prices. 86 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 ORIGIN OF THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY 
 
 Senator Cameron took advantage of every opportunity 
 to urge upon the people of Pennsylvania the necessity 
 of an increase in the tariff rates as the surest means of guard- 
 ing their industrial interests from the competition of the pauper 
 labor of Europe. The Democratic Party had signally failed to 
 give them the protection that they desired and deserved. It had 
 promised relief but the trend of the tariff under Democratic 
 administrations had been disastrously downward. He declared 
 that before they could get proper protection the majority in 
 each branch of Congress must be changed, also the occupant of 
 the White House. He believed that the laboring men had it 
 within their power to make these changes if they would go to 
 the polls and vote for their own interests. The constant urging 
 of such views as these began to show results before the mid- 
 year in 1858. 
 
 One Republican leader of Philadelphia wrote: "We are be- 
 stirring ourselves in the cause of protection." This writer was 
 chairman of the recently organized Home Protective Union, 
 which was designed to disseminate intelligence upon the work- 
 ings of the protective, and of the free-trade, policies, and "to 
 urge the people to adopt prompt measures to procure fostering 
 and encouraging legislation." In the name of the committee on 
 organization he extended to Cameron an invitation to visit 
 Philadelphia and participate in a grand mass-meeting on or be- 
 fore June tenth. It was his hope that this demonstration would 
 be followed by similar meetings in other parts of the Union. 1 
 
 Another Republican leader of Philadelphia, Henry C. Carey, 
 wrote to Cameron inquiring how Seward stood on protection 
 and declaring Pennsylvania's interest in having a protectionist 
 for the next President. Cameron replied that no man in the 
 Senate was more decidedly the friend of protection than was 
 
1 86 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Seward. Every Republican Senator knew that the tariff issue 
 must play an important part in the election of i860. He agreed 
 with Carey that Pennsylvania must support no man for the 
 presidency who was not "known, open and decided for pro- 
 tection." He hoped Carey would see that from Philadelphia and 
 Schuylkill there should be congressmen elected in the October 
 election who would not falter when they came to Washington. 
 He declared Pennsylvania had her destinies in her own hands. 
 She could make Presidents, and if she would make a good one 
 next time she could have her interests protected — but not 
 otherwise. 2 
 
 Senator Cameron accepted the invitation to attend the mass- 
 meeting sponsored by the Home Protective Union. It was held 
 on Tuesday evening, June fifteenth. It was largely attended and 
 was an exceedingly enthusiastic tariff meeting. Henry C. Carey 
 presided and Cameron was one of the principal speakers. 3 Gath- 
 erings such as this were laying the groundwork for the Republi- 
 can nominations for state and federal offices. The Republicans 
 were very late in holding conventions and making nominations 
 this year. They were capitalizing on the anti-Administration 
 sentiment generated by the Kansas policy and were whipping up 
 a demand for protection which Democratic policy opposed. 
 
 The Buchananites, in a stormy session of the Democratic 
 States Central Committee in January, had succeeded in post- 
 poning the state convention to March fourth. It assembled on 
 the designated day in the chamber of the house of representa- 
 tives. It was as unharmonious as the committee meeting had 
 been. The Democrats were sharply divided between Buchan- 
 anites and anti-Lecomptonites, with the latter in the minority. 
 John L. Dawson, an Administration man, was chosen president 
 of the convention, and made a lengthy speech defending the 
 Lecompton Constitution. The minority complained of the gag 
 tactics employed against them in the appointment of commit- 
 tees and finally obtained some representation. The resolutions 
 committee presented a very long report fully sustaining the 
 Lecompton Constitution and President Buchanan. The minorty 
 report, presented by William A. Stokes of Westmoreland, de- 
 clared acceptance of the Lecompton Constitution would be 
 congressional usurpation, and that members of Congress voting 
 
ORIGIN OF THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY 187 
 
 for the Lecompton Constitution would be guilty of moral trea- 
 son. This report offered as an amendment to the majority re- 
 port, was voted down by a five-to-one vote, after which the 
 Anti-Lecomptonites refused to vote on the resolutions, permit- 
 ting them to carry almost unanimously. 4 On the night of the 
 second day the convention succeeded in accomplishing the 
 object for which it was called in the nominations of William 
 A. Porter as candidate for judge of the supreme court, and 
 Wesley Frost as candidate for canal commissioner. 5 
 
 Andrew H. Reeder wrote numerous letters to Cameron dur- 
 ing the first half of the year concerning party tactics. These 
 letters show considerable reliance on Cameron for names of 
 persons to be put on the state committee. There was some talk 
 among Republicans about selecting some of their candidates 
 from the anti-Lecompton Democrats, in the hope that they 
 would thus effect a political organization in the state, and capi- 
 talize on the Democratic defection. Cameron wrote to Reeder 
 on the expediency of this move. Reeder reflected on this but 
 believed the few votes thus to be gained would be at too great a 
 sacrifice of their own party through the dissatisfaction it might 
 cause, declaring: "If they want the candidate they should give 
 us a fair consideration well understood in advance." 6 
 
 Cameron was a more astute politician than Reeder and was 
 able to see the advantages of courting the dissatisfied elements 
 among the Democrats and turning their influence to the benefit 
 of his own party. He continued working with the idea. Dis- 
 lodged Democrats had carried him to the senatorship twice; 
 why couldn't such Democrats be used to carry his party to 
 success in October? Soon some of the anti-Lecompton Demo- 
 crats were seeking his advice. Late in May John W. Forney con- 
 sulted with him on the possibility of the Republicans' and anti- 
 Administration Democrats' reaching a working agreement on a 
 candidate for judge in the coming election. 7 A considerable 
 block of Democrats heartily resented the way they had been 
 treated by the Buchananites in the state convention and were 
 ready to take revenge. 
 
 Another friend of Cameron, who had been a staunch advo- 
 cate of pure "Americanism," wrote from Easton that he be- 
 lieved "all signs around here point to complete union of the 
 
1 88 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 elements of the opposition to the present administration"; he 
 would now work "for strong and complete union for purposes 
 of routing a rotten party." He was in a great stronghold of the 
 Democrats, and the "American" newspaper would work towards 
 bringing about as thorough a union as possible against them. 
 He believed that Buchanan had fallen into the hands of weak 
 advocates in the persons of J. Glancy Jones of the House and 
 William Bigler of the Senate, and thought the effects of the 
 English Compromise "fraud" would soon react unfavorably to 
 those who advocated it both in Pennsylvania and in the national 
 administration. 8 
 
 A call was issued for a Union State Convention to meet in 
 Harrisburg in July. Most of the delegates had arrived by the 
 evening of the thirteenth and held an informal meeting at 
 Coverly's Hotel, with David Taggart in the chair. The atten- 
 dance was large. The next day the convention assembled in 
 the hall of the house of representatives. Judge William Jessup 
 served as temporary chairman until A. H. Reeder was made 
 permanent president. On taking the chair, Reeder made a brief 
 address in which he referred to the peculiar condition of public 
 affairs of the country, the desertion by the national administra- 
 tion of the cardinal doctrines of democracy; and urged unity, 
 concord, and harmony on the Union Party. John M. Read of 
 Philadelphia was nominated for judge of the supreme court on 
 the tenth ballot. William E. Frazer of Fayette was nominated 
 for canal commissioner. 9 The evidence of appeal to anti-Admin- 
 istration Democrats was witnessed in the nomination of Read. 
 He was an old Democrat who now found Democratic policies 
 no longer acceptable and had refused to support Buchanan in 
 1856. Shortly after this convention the National Era declared it 
 had cheering accounts of the anti-Buchanan union in Pennsyl- 
 vania for state and congressional elections in the fall, and re- 
 ported that the movement seemed to be thorough, enthusiastic 
 and hopeful. 10 
 
 Cameron contributed much of his time, energy, and money 
 to the object of defeating the Buchanan administration in the 
 October election in Pennsylvania. His desire was to obtain as 
 complete a repudiation as possible in both state and congressional 
 elections. He wrote innumerable letters of encouragement to 
 
ORIGIN OF THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY 189 
 
 leaders and friends throughout the state urging sustained efforts 
 and the obtaining of "rousing'' majorities. He himself addressed 
 a number of meetings during these months. 
 
 The result of the October election was one of the greatest 
 reversals ever experienced by political parties in Pennsylvania 
 to that time, though the Democrats were not the victims of so 
 huge an avalanche of adverse votes as claimed by early reports 
 of opposition newspapers. 11 Read won over his Democratic op- 
 ponent by a majority of nearly twenty-seven thousand and 
 Frazer over Frost by almost the same figure. The Democrats 
 succeeded in retaining control of the senate by only one vote 
 but in the house their number dropped from sixty-eight to 
 thirty-two. In the preceding legislature the Democrats had 
 eighty-nine of the one hundred thirty-three seats in the two 
 branches; in the next they would have only forty-nine. 12 Bu- 
 chanan had carried the state in 1856 by about one thousand ma- 
 jority while Read of the opposition now carried the state (two 
 years later) by almost twenty-seven thousand. 
 
 Cameron had appealed for the election of Republicans to 
 Congress and the result here was more striking than that shown 
 in elections to the state legislature. The 1856 election gave Penn- 
 sylvania fifteen Democrats to ten Republicans in the national 
 House. The 1858 election left Pennsylvania with only five 
 Democrats, two of whom were anti-Lecompton, but twenty 
 Republicans. In the thirty-fifth Congress there were ninety- 
 two House Republicans, but in the thirty-sixth there would 
 be one hundred nine, a gain of seventeen. 13 Thus Pennsylvania 
 accounted for more than half of the gain of the Republicans in 
 the House of Representatives. 
 
 When sufficient returns had been made to indicate over- 
 whelming defeat of the Administration, the New York Times 
 pointed out two things of significance in the Pennsylvania vote: 
 first, that it was a condemnation of Buchanan's Kansas policy — 
 a repudiation of Lecomptonism; and second, that it was a de- 
 mand for protection of its industries, which Democratic candi- 
 dates had ever and again promised, but never granted. 14 
 
 The Times Washington correspondent stated that the elec- 
 tion returns from Pennsylvania startled the President, who ad- 
 mitted that he had been misled as to the popularity of his Ad- 
 
190 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 ministration in the Keystone State. 15 This statement of the 
 President was evidently for public consumption for it certainly 
 was not a full expression of his honest convictions. His private 
 correspondence presents another picture. As early as July he 
 looked forward with despair to the October election. "Things 
 look rather 'blue' in Philadelphia. I entertain little hope of the 
 election of William A. Porter, though I ardently desire it," he 
 wrote to William B. Reed, whom he had recently appointed 
 Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to China. 16 
 Three days after the election he wrote to his niece, Miss Harriet 
 Lane: "We have met the enemy and we are theirs. This I have 
 anticipated for three months and was not taken by surprise ex- 
 cept as to the extent of our defeat." 17 
 
 In the Pennsylvania election, Buchanan's greatest grief was 
 over the defeat of J. Glancy Jones the Representative from 
 the eighth congressional district. He was one of the President's 
 chief lieutenants and confidants and also chairman of the im- 
 portant Committee on Ways and Means. Because of his place 
 in the Administration the contest of the opposition for his seat 
 was particularly hard fought. He had won in 1856, for his fourth 
 term, with a majority of more than six thousand, but was de- 
 feated by nineteen votes in 1858. His successful opponent was 
 John Schwartz, an anti-Lecompton Democrat. 18 In the above- 
 mentioned letter to Miss Lane, Buchanan expressed his deep 
 regret at the defeat of "poor" Jones, and added: "With the 
 blessing of Providence I shall endeavor to raise him up and 
 place him in some position where they cannot reach him." A 
 few days later Jones was offered the post of Envoy Extraordi- 
 nary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Austria, which he ac- 
 cepted. He resigned his congressional post to go immediately 
 to his new position. The Evening Bulletin referred to President 
 Buchanan's offer of this place to Jones as a consolation for the 
 loss of the confidence of the Berks County Democracy. 19 
 
 Francis P. Blair was in Philadelphia on the day of the elec- 
 tion. After returning to his home at Silver Springs, Maryland, 
 he wrote to Cameron congratulating him on the Republican 
 success in Pennsylvania. He reported the importation, or coloni- 
 zation, of seventeen hundred workers in the navy yard for the 
 purpose of voting them for the Administration candidate, 
 
ORIGIN OF THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY 191 
 
 Thomas B. Florence. Blair understood Florence's election was 
 to be contested. He hoped it would be, as this would bring the 
 matter before the representatives of the whole people and would 
 "expose this shocking outrage to the principles of free suffrage 
 in such form as to arouse the public indignation" and might 
 succeed in arresting "this meddling of the Executive with the 
 function of the people."- 
 
 Many letters to Cameron during the months of the campaign 
 spoke in very unfavorable terms of the parts that Buchanan and 
 Senator Bigler were playing with reference to the interests of 
 Pennsylvania. The writers showed their opposition to the use 
 of executive pressure to control Pennsylvania elections, and to 
 the attitude of both on tariff policy. 21 
 
 A lull usually follows a tempest, and so the political world 
 subsided into an unwonted calm for a period after the fall 
 elections of 1858. Democrats and Republicans 22 were both try- 
 ing to capitalize on what consolation the result might be made 
 to yield. The victors quite naturally were exultant over their 
 sweeping victories. The Pennsylvania Republicans felt sure that 
 they would control the state after i860. The greatest cloud on 
 the political horizon of the Republicans was the triumph of 
 Douglas in Illinois, in his contest with Lincoln for the senator- 
 ship. The unpleasant suspicion developed that, having become a 
 powerful and popular foe of Buchanan, he might spoil their 
 chances for national success in i860. During succeeding months 
 there was much newspaper speculation on Douglas' becoming 
 the leader of a reorganized Democratic Party, or even the can- 
 didate of the Republican Party. To many Republicans popular 
 sovereignty had come to look like a safe principle. 
 
 Hannibal Hamlin of Maine was quite enthusiastic about the 
 results in Pennsylvania and the prospects for i860. He con- 
 gratulated Cameron on the Republican victory in the Keystone 
 State and added: "You have settled the contest of i860. We 
 will then take the Government into our hands." 23 
 
 Seward was generally conceded leadership among the Re- 
 publicans. He had receded greatly from his seeming radicalism 
 of 1850 and was the most talked-of Republican candidate for 
 i860. The contests of 1858 had brought others into prominence 
 and they too received some attention from local conventions and 
 
1 92 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 the press. Cameron naturally shared in this attention, because 
 of the importance of Pennsylvania. Early in the contest, in June 
 of 1858, C. Dawson Coleman wrote: "I see the New York 
 Herald has come out for Simon Cameron for President." 24 An 
 admirer in New York wrote in October: "The time has in my 
 opinion arrived when your name should be posted for Presi- 
 dent." 25 
 
 The political revolution in Pennsylvania gave the Republicans 
 more than a two-to-one advantage over their opponents in the 
 house of representatives. Naturally there were several deserving 
 Republicans of ability who aspired to the honor of election to 
 the speakership. One such candidate was Alexander K. McClure. 
 Cameron and McClure had differed on many political ques- 
 tions in Pennsylvania in the past and certainly were never on 
 very cordial terms. That Cameron would throw his influence 
 to anyone who could defeat McClure, the latter had heard from 
 some of Cameron's friends. He wrote to Cameron expressing 
 hope that this was not true. He had considered him since 1856 
 as of his own party and stated that in the past he had not work- 
 ed against him. He requested of Cameron a candid reply. 26 The 
 writer does not have a copy of the reply, but does have Mc- 
 Clure's answer in which he stated that the position indicated by 
 Cameron in his letter of October thirtieth was fully satisfactory. 
 McClure declared that he was unwilling to regard him as pur- 
 suing a course of decided hostility to him (McClure) without 
 affording him an opportunity to be heard, and suggested they 
 let the matter pass. 27 
 
 When the legislature assembled in January, McClure and 
 William C. Lawrence were the leading Republican candidates 
 for the speakership. In the party caucus, on the eve of organiza- 
 tion of the legislature, Lawrence was elected as the Republican 
 nominee. On the following day his election over the Democratic 
 nominee was little more than a matter of form. 28 Writing about 
 this incident more than a generation later, McClure declared 
 that until a week before the assembling of the legislature his 
 election as speaker was discussed in the public press as assured 
 without contest. It was then that Lawrence entered the field. 
 On the afternoon of the caucus McClure was called to Omit's 
 Hotel to meet General Cameron, who was going to Washington 
 
ORIGIN OF THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY 193 
 
 that evening. They discussed the nomination and the matter of 
 appointments to committees by the speaker. They differed radi- 
 cally on the matter of moral principles in relation to political 
 activities and methods, as a consequence of which Cameron evi- 
 dently was greatly displeased. McClure declared that Cameron 
 then, instead of going to Washington, remained in Harrisburg, 
 and threw himself vigorously into the contest. He directed a 
 quiet but thorough canvass of the members with personal invi- 
 tations to visit him and liberal promises of important positions 
 on committees. He thus accomplished the defeat of McClure 
 and the nomination of Lawrence. 29 
 
 The year 1859, though not a presidential-election year, was 
 a period of much strife and turmoil in Pennsylvania, particularly 
 among the Democrats. The March convention was controlled by 
 Buchananites, to the exclusion of those opposed to the Admin- 
 istration, or out of favor with it. This led to revolt on their part. 
 
 Forney took the lead in the revolt. On Anarch twenty-first 
 the Press issued a call for another Democratic State Convention 
 to meet in Harrisburg in mid-April. Among the purposes stated 
 were: to consult on the propriety of adopting measures "to 
 vindicate the name, fame, and principles of the Democratic 
 party," which had been "outraged and insulted" by the con- 
 vention at the state capital on the sixteenth of March; to resist 
 the high-handed attempt of the federal administration to dictate 
 political creeds to the people; to vindicate Governor Packer 
 from the assault aimed at his administration; and to reassert the 
 principles of popular sovereignty. This call was copied not only 
 by papers in Pennsylvania but by papers in other states interested 
 in the disruption of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party. 30 
 
 This Democratic State-Rights Convention assembled at the 
 state capital on April thirteenth. It was attended by a large 
 number of people, including many of the strongest men in the 
 ranks of the Pennsylvania Democracy. Forney was appointed 
 chairman of the committee on resolutions. John Hickman, anti- 
 Lecompton Democrat and member of Congress from Philadel- 
 phia, delivered a speech of an hour's length which was a de- 
 nunciation of President Buchanan and his policies. Strong reso- 
 lutions were adopted emphatically repudiating the federal ad- 
 ministration, declaring that it had departed so far from party 
 
i94 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 principles that no honest Democrat could support it. Other reso- 
 lutions were adopted which strongly endorsed Governor Pack- 
 er and Senator Douglas. 31 The convention adjourned without 
 nominating a ticket. At a meeting of the State Central Com- 
 mittee in Altoona, some three weeks later, under the chairman- 
 ship of Forney, it was decided inexpedient to nominate a state 
 ticket. 32 The Cincinnati Com?nercial concluded that this action 
 probably would mean a union with other branches of the op- 
 position in Pennsylvania. 33 This, of course, was what Cameron 
 and other Republican leaders in the state hoped for. They were 
 ready and anxious to feed the flames of discord within Demo- 
 cratic ranks. The "Occasional" Washington correspondent of 
 the Philadelphia Press reported that President Buchanan was 
 greatly displeased by the action of these Democrats in con- 
 vention at Harrisburg and that he would "pay liberally for 
 scalps." 34 
 
 Ohio and New York were both interested in Forney's place 
 in Pennsylvania politics and wanted to see him brought into 
 harmony with the opponents of the Administration. The Cin- 
 cinnati Commercial proposed John Sherman of Ohio for Speak- 
 er of the next Congress and Forney for clerk of the House. The 
 New York Herald noted that Forney's name for the clerkship 
 seemed to turn up with every proposed Sewardite for the 
 speakership. It believed, however, that Forney had no intention 
 of seeking such a position. Seward and Cameron, it thought, had 
 intended a more lucrative position for him, if they could perfect 
 a coalition. They desired the printership of the House for the 
 exclusive benefit of the Press, in order that, with a part of the 
 profits resulting therefrom, talent might be purchased for the 
 journal which might make it effective in Pennsylvania in the 
 presidential campaign. It believed the plan was for Seward to 
 control the Black Republicans, Cameron to operate upon the 
 Know-Nothings, and Forney to take care of his own particular 
 
 associates. 35 
 
 As the months passed in 1859, the many conflicting ideas and 
 aims among the more aggressive Republicans, the old Know- 
 Nothings, and the anti-Lecompton Democrats were harmon- 
 ized by postponing differences for future arbitrament and con- 
 centrating on the task of defeating the administration. The battle 
 
ORIGIN OF THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY 195 
 
 was thus made hopeless for the Democrats. The party of oppo- 
 sition in Pennsylvania came to be known as the People's Party, 
 a name which it bore for the next few years, when it became 
 practically synonymous with the Republican Party. As a portent 
 to the Democrats of what might happen in October the People's 
 Party won a rather decisive victory in the municipal election in 
 Philadelphia on May third. 36 
 
 McClure, who had desired the speakership of the Pennsyl- 
 vania house of representatives and had been defeated in the 
 Republican caucus in January, in the summer of 1859 sought 
 nomination for state senator. There was much hostile feeling 
 against him in his own party. Dr. W. H. Boyle, one of his 
 fellow townsmen, wrote to Cameron soliciting his aid and coun- 
 sel. Boyle declared that a determined effort would be made to 
 prevent McClure's nomination and if that failed then further 
 effort would be made to defeat him at the election. 37 No evi- 
 dence appears indicating Cameron's opposition to McClure's 
 election. On the basis of past conduct and record, Cameron, 
 with no particular reason to desire McClure's defeat, would 
 endeavor to smooth out difficulties and bring about harmony, 
 thereby strengthening the party and at the same time establish- 
 ing friendly obligations to himself. The probability is that some- 
 thing of this sort was done, for in October McClure was elected 
 with a creditable majority. 
 
 The opposition newspapers as usual harped upon presidential 
 interference in Pennsylvania elections. Having lost his home state 
 in the last election it was not surprising that Buchanan should 
 have hoped for vindication in 1859, even though it was only a 
 state election. "No one can mistake the object of President Bu- 
 chanan's visit to Pennsylvania on the eve of the election, insin- 
 uated one journal when Buchanan briefly visited Pennsylvania 
 in the early fall. It went further and suggested it was not im- 
 probable that he would be able to offer something more sub- 
 stantial than good advice to his friends. The President was 
 known to regard with peculiar horror bribery or any other 
 form of corruption, but he could see no harm in "strengthening 
 the faint-hearted and confirming the doubting by the offer of 
 sundry snug offices." The following week this newspaper print- 
 ed evidence to support the charges of the earlier issue. 38 Probably 
 
i 9 6 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 the real trouble, in the eyes of the opposition, was that the 
 President had the opportunity to distribute offices while they 
 had no such means of persuasion. Certainly evidence is abun- 
 dant that, when they came to power, they were not afflicted 
 with moral scruples against the practice. 
 
 The Democrats of Pennsylvania suffered their second con- 
 secutive defeat in 1859. The People's Party carried the state 
 offices by majorities of approximately eighteen thousand. They 
 gained five more seats in the state senate, giving them twenty- 
 one to the Democrats' twelve; and retained better than a two- 
 to-one advantage in the house. 39 When it became evident that 
 William B. Mann, the candidate for district attorney, was pil- 
 ing up a considerable majority, a spontaneous desire to cele- 
 brate the victory resulted in a torch-light procession to his 
 home in Philadelphia. In this impromptu meeting enthusiasm 
 was unbounded. Cameron, called upon for a speech, congratu- 
 lated the friends of the district attorney on the victory they had 
 achieved, and deemed the results throughout the state the pre- 
 cursor of a triumph in the presidential contest in i860. 40 
 
 In a discussion of Republican successes in Pennsylvania one 
 must not overlook the continuing service of Cameron in the 
 United States Senate. During the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth 
 Congresses there were certain policies for which he was ever- 
 lastingly striving. The policy which he most persistently pur- 
 sued throughout his whole senatorial career of four terms was 
 that of seeking better conditions for Pennsylvania industry and 
 labor. His panacea for their besetting ills was an increase in the 
 rates of the tariff. He presented literally thousands of petitions, 
 one hundred thirty-six on a single occasion, 41 from the citizens 
 of his state praying for protection. 
 
 He kept the people of Pennsylvania always alert to the neces- 
 sity of doing something about the tariff. Soon after Congress con- 
 vened in December of 1859, Cameron wrote to a Philadelphia 
 friend, who was a business man and banker, that the Southerners 
 used fright and intimidation of the weak and timid traders of the 
 North in order to retain control of the Treasury. He felt con- 
 fident the Northern men were getting tired of their continued 
 attack and would now stand firm. For Pennsylvania to get 
 protection for industry it would be necessary to change the 
 
ORIGIN OF THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY 197 
 
 Administration and the principles which controlled the gov- 
 ernment. He believed that Pennsylvania had the power in her 
 hands. 42 
 
 Cameron overlooked no opportunity to keep the tariff issue 
 before the Senate. In a rather long debate on the Civil Appro- 
 priations Bill on March 2, 1859, an item to enable the Secretary 
 of the Treasury to re-issue the $20,000,000 of Treasury notes 
 provided for by an earlier act gave Cameron an opening. He 
 declared it to be, in his judgment, unwise to borrow money 
 without providing the means for its payment. He could not vote 
 for this bill. If it should be accompanied by a section providing 
 for increased revenues he would vote for the bill. The govern- 
 ment, he thought, should increase its income by a wise adjust- 
 ment of the revenue system, rather than ask Congress to allow 
 it to borrow more money. He criticized the attitude of the 
 Southern leaders towards the tariff question and presented sta- 
 tistics to show that they bore considerably less than their pro- 
 portional part of the tax burden. Seward, in an equally long 
 speech, supported Cameron's contention, declared against bor- 
 rowing and pointed to the increase of duties on foreign mer- 
 chandise as the only way to restore the soundness and solvency 
 of the Treasury. Senator Jefferson Davis replied for the South, 
 defending its position and upholding the principle of free- 
 trade. 43 
 
 Again two weeks before the close of the first session of the 
 thirty-sixth Congress, June fifteenth, Senator Robert M. T. 
 Hunter of Virginia, of the Committee on Finance, moved to 
 postpone until December further consideration of the tariff. 
 Senator Bigler, in a speech of more than two hours, came out 
 strongly in opposition to postponement and argued for a change 
 of mode of collection from ad valorem to specific duties. 44 
 Cameron hailed Bigler's change of sentiment and supplemented 
 his colleague's arguments with another hour's address. Despite 
 their strenuous objections, in an evening session of the same 
 day, in what Bigler described as a thin Senate, Hunter's motion 
 for postponement was carried twenty-five to twenty-three, both 
 Pennsylvania Senators voting in the negative. The tariff ques- 
 tion was thus deferred until the next session. It was taken up 
 again in December and finally, near the end of the session, a 
 
198 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 tariff bill making some modifications favorable to Pennsylvania 
 was passed. Cameron and Bigler both voted for the bill. Cam- 
 eron spoke more than a score of times on the tariff issue during 
 this short session. 45 
 
 Governmental waste drew shafts from Cameron many times 
 during the sessions under consideration. He believed that busi- 
 ness methods should be applied to government, and waste elimi- 
 nated. The objects of his particular thrusts were the public 
 printing of the Senate and the administration of the Post Office. 
 Cameron declared that the cost of congressional printing had 
 suddenly increased so much that it was a subject of serious in- 
 terest to the whole country. He was a printer by trade and 
 knew the business; he had also served on the Senate Committee 
 on Printing from 1845 to 1849. He showed that the whole sum 
 paid for paper, printing, and binding in 1847 was $64,691.96. 
 This was under the contract system, when the work was given 
 to the lowest bidder. Some time later, at the instance of persons 
 interested in higher prices, the system was changed. Cameron 
 was chairman of the committee when the contract system was 
 inaugurated; he recognized weaknesses, corrected many, and 
 asked for more authority for the chairman, which was refused. 
 He maintained that that system could easily have been carried 
 out. Under the new system, having an appointee to direct the 
 printing and scattering it about to favored individuals, excessive 
 profits were being made. In contrast to the whole sum paid for 
 paper, printing, and binding in 1847, the cost for these services 
 from July 1, 1856, to March 4, 1857, had risen to $1,258,210.42. 
 He cited figures to prove that the actual cost for the work done 
 was not more than twenty per cent of the price paid for the 
 same. He took every opportunity to curtail the amount of un- 
 necessary Senate printing. 46 
 
 The Post Office system he once declared was wholly wrong. 
 It encouraged party corruption, and would be better in private 
 hands. He felt that there was a great amount of inexperience and 
 irresponsibility which would not be tolerated in private enter- 
 prise. On another occasion in some wrath at the abuse of the 
 franking system he declared that he favored its abolition entire- 
 ly. On the presentation, by the Post Office officials, of a bill for 
 services for folding of documents which had been sent out, he 
 
ORIGIN OF THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY 199 
 
 protested that it was excessive. He had sent far more than some 
 other members though the expense account against his name 
 was less. He explained that he had paid the cost for someone to 
 fold this material. He thought it was not a legitimate charge 
 against the government since so much was sent for personal 
 gain. 47 
 
 The national debt had been increased by fifty-seven millions 
 of dollars in the first three years of the Buchanan administration. 
 Cameron felt that this was because the expenditures of the gov- 
 ernment had been shamefully increased. This belief plus the 
 failure to obtain tariff reform added to his bitterness towards 
 the Administration. Nevertheless, he had no hesitancy in sup- 
 porting governmental measures that involved vast sums if they 
 were in line with his ideas of what was good for the country. 
 He spoke frequently on the desirability of building a railroad 
 from the Mississippi to the Pacific. He declared the project was 
 too big for private enterprise alone and said he would vote for 
 government aid. 48 He urged government aid also in establishing 
 telegraphic communication with Utah, in subsidizing the Collins 
 Shipping Line for mail transportation to and from Europe, and 
 in promoting many other such works for general improvement 
 of the service to the public. In i860 he urged congressional ac- 
 tion to facilitate construction of more rail connections between 
 northern and southern railroads; the lack of which, he argued, 
 tended to isolate both sections. 49 
 
 Cameron came from humble but industrious ancestry and 
 this class of folk always received much attention from him. His 
 influence on legislation was always exerted in behalf of obtain- 
 ing higher wages and better living conditions for low-waged 
 workmen and small-salaried office-holders, generally through in- 
 crease of tariff rates. 50 He favored the bill to provide home- 
 steads for actual settlers before Congress in i860. He voted for 
 the Senate Homestead Bill which passed that body forty-four 
 to eight on May 10, i860. 51 This bill passed the House of Rep- 
 resentatives with amendments, which the Senate was unwilling 
 to accept. After the appointment of two conference committees 
 (Cameron and Andrew Johnson served as managers on the part 
 of the Senate, on the second committee) the bill was finally ap- 
 proved by both Houses, only to be vetoed by the President. 52 
 
200 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Free homesteads had to wait until the next Congress, when under 
 a new administration a similar measure became a law. 
 
 Successes scored against the Administration continued to 
 bolster Republican confidence of their success in i860. Preston 
 King of New York declared after the close of the final session 
 of the thirty-fifth Congress that its actions had increased the 
 confidence of Republicans in themselves, in their principles, 
 and in the consistency and strength of their organization; and 
 that the courage of the Democrats was weakening. He felt that 
 there was very strong confidence in the success of the Repub- 
 lican Party in i860 and that there was no sign that this confi- 
 dence would produce any such rivalry for the nomination as 
 would prevent hearty unanimity at the election. He noted a 
 general expectancy that Seward would be the candidate; cer- 
 tainly he was the first choice of New York. He also noted that 
 Cameron, who was understood to favor Seward, might be in 
 the field as Pennsylvania's candidate. In addition he mentioned 
 Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio and Edwards Bates of Missouri. 53 
 
 Cameron's name continued to be mentioned for the presi- 
 dency. Ex-senator James Cooper of Pennsylvania, in an inter- 
 view in Washington on August ninth, said that he thought 
 Cameron could carry Pennsylvania, if nominated. The People's 
 county conventions in some areas of Pennsylvania passed resolu- 
 tions supporting him. 54 Reeder wrote from Allentown pledging 
 friendship in the coming political struggle of i860. 55 From be- 
 yond the state came the report that several newspapers in Ohio 
 had endorsed the candidacy of Cameron. 56 Joseph H. Barrett, 
 editor of the Cincinnati Gazette, a leading Republican journal 
 of the West, wrote to Cameron that, considering his place in 
 the i860 canvass, he desired to be authoritatively advised on cer- 
 tain points as to Cameron's position. The General turned the 
 letter over to Joseph Casey, editor of the Harrisburg Telegraph, 
 who was warmly devoted to his interests. Casey outlined, in a 
 letter to Barrett, Cameron's position on the issues inquired 
 about. 57 Lincoln of Illinois very diplomatically refused to com- 
 mit himself to Cameron, with a statement which at the same 
 time gave a hint of his own candidacy: "For my single self, I 
 have enlisted for the permanent success of the Republican 
 cause; and for this object I shall labor faithfully in the ranks, 
 
 
ORIGIN OF THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY 201 
 
 unless, as I think not probable, the judgment of the party shall 
 assign me a different position. " 58 
 
 In 1859 the opposition won its second consecutive victory 
 over the Democrats of Pennsylvania. This was sufficient notice 
 that the state was debatable ground for the great battle of 1 860, 
 and the chances were largely in favor of another victory for the 
 People's Party. The opposition was so earnest in forcing the 
 unity of political action of the various elements, which were 
 not in hearty sympathy with each other, that its leaders were 
 compelled to submerge individual ambitions in favor of success 
 for the whole. As soon as the victory of the People's Party in 
 1859 became apparent, then a host of candidates were sprung 
 upon the party for the offices of governor of Pennsylvania and 
 United States Senator. There would be no senatorial vacancy, 
 of course, until 1861, when Bigler's term would end. 
 
 The People's Party State Convention was held in Harrisburg 
 during the last week in February. By that time three persons, 
 Andrew Gregg Curtin, John Covode, and David Taggart, had 
 acquired leadership as candidates for the nomination for gover- 
 nor. Curtin received the nomination on the third ballot. 59 The 
 Democrats assembled in convention a week later in Reading. 
 Henry D. Foster, one of six candidates, was nominated by ac- 
 clamation after three ballots had failed to make a choice. 60 
 
 The Pennsylvania state political canvass was made more com- 
 plex in 1 860 by the national election of the same year. This was 
 evident even in the People's convention in Harrisburg. There 
 was great hostility between Curtin and Cameron. Curtin had 
 sufficient votes pledged before the convention met to insure 
 his nomination. Cameron, who favored Covode, busied himself 
 and won over several Curtin men. When the convention met, 
 securing Cameron's nomination for the presidency was pressed 
 as the first duty of the body, and a resolution for that purpose 
 was offered. This resolution caused an excited discussion but it 
 was carried at the evening session by a vote of eighty-nine to 
 thirty-nine. This order of procedure on the part of the Cameron 
 men was foreshadowed in a letter of Henry K. Strong to Henry 
 C. Carey a month earlier. 01 The question then arose as to how 
 the district delegates should be chosen. M. B. Lowry moved 
 their choice by the respective districts rather than by the con- 
 
202 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 vention. This, it was believed, would weaken Cameron. The 
 meeting adjourned before action was taken on the motion. 
 
 Cameron needed Curtin support and Curtin needed Cameron 
 support, and for the party's interests a rift must be prevented. A 
 large portion of that night was occupied in the working out of a 
 compromise whereby Cameron would release those men whom 
 he had won from the Curtin ranks and Lowry's motion would 
 be modified to authorize the delegates in the convention from 
 any congressional district to decide for themselves whether they 
 would name persons to be chosen as delegates by the conven- 
 tion, or whether they would refer the choice to the people. 
 Under this arrangement, Judge James T. Hale offered a sub- 
 stitute motion the next morning with the added provision that 
 such delegates be instructed to vote as a unit for Cameron for 
 the presidency so long as his name should remain before the na- 
 tional convention. 62 
 
 Cameron had some very faithful friends at Harrisburg, as 
 well as some very determined opponents. McClure of the latter 
 group, was selected as chairman of the People's State Central 
 Committee. He discovered that the personnel of the committee 
 contained a majority of Cameron members. McClure charges 
 that they planned at the first meeting of the committee "to as- 
 sert their omnipotence by appointing an executive committee 
 from the State committee to be practically charged with the 
 control of the campaign, . . . leaving me merely an ornamental 
 chairman." McClure describes with great glee how he and the 
 friends of Curtin tricked the Cameron men so that many were 
 absent from the first committee meeting. He recounts that the 
 carefully laid plans of the Cameron men would have succeeded 
 had not their plan miscarried by a roystering frolic at Cresson's 
 where the committee met, that was as carefully planned as were 
 designs of the Cameron people. 
 
 Every friend of Curtin was there, and every one of the opposition 
 was present also the evening before the committee was to meet, the 
 hour being ten o'clock on the following morning. Every Curtin man had 
 been sworn to keep sober, but to join in the general frolic that night at 
 Dr. Jackson's old hospital building, a little distance from the hotel. The 
 programme was carried out with great precision, many of the Curtin 
 men joined in the frolic, and the place overflowed with wine, with a 
 
ORIGIN OF THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY 203 
 
 dozen card tables adding to the interest and entertainment. The result 
 was that just about daylight they broke up to go to bed, but the Curtin 
 men slept in their boots, and at ten o'clock every one of them responded 
 to the roll-call, while more than a score of the others were missing. 63 
 
 This meeting of only fifteen minutes' duration adjourned to 
 meet at the call of the chairman, and though many very earnest 
 appeals were made by some members of the committee to call 
 another meeting, "it never occurred to the chairman that 
 another meeting of the committee was necessary." It would be 
 no exaggeration to say that McClure's support and advocacy 
 of Cameron's interests were less than half-hearted. 
 
 The correspondence of McClure and Curtin with Cameron 
 indicates that they were striving towards harmony of the party 
 throughout the state and within the committee. McClure even 
 expressed the hope that the Chicago Convention would be able 
 to see that Cameron was the only Republican who could carry 
 the Keystone State. Nevertheless, there was a long controversy 
 concerning appointment of certain persons to the state commit- 
 tee who were unfavorable to Cameron and who were eventually 
 appointed over his protests. Russell Errett of Pittsburgh wrote 
 to Cameron after visiting Philadelphia that things were con- 
 siderably out of sorts. He blamed McClure for the political 
 dissension within the ranks and feared loss of support to other 
 tickets. A "Republican Club" was established in Philadelphia 
 to assist in the state and national campaigns and at its solicitation 
 was aided by Cameron with its organization. This club was in 
 no way connected with the People's State Central Committee, 
 and McClure feared it was a movement aimed at supplanting 
 his committee. After protracted correspondence between Cur- 
 tin, Cameron, and McClure, the matter of Cameron's connec- 
 tions with the club was seemingly cleared up to McClure's satis- 
 faction. 64 
 
CHAPTER X 
 THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 
 
 The Republican National Committee met at the Astor House 
 in New York on December 22, 1859. It considered mat- 
 ters pertaining to party welfare and issued a call for a na- 
 tional convention to meet in Chicago in June of i860. The 
 leading Republican journals were soon urging that it be held 
 early in May. They argued that the meeting should precede 
 any third party nominations, and carry out a program that 
 would secure a united North. 1 Yielding to these demands, the 
 date was shifted to May sixteenth. 
 
 Long before i860 there were several candidates in the field. 
 Seward of New York had been one of the leaders of the party 
 since its organization, and for two years was being groomed 
 by Thurlow Weed for the presidential nomination in i860. 
 There were many favorite sons: Cameron of Pennsylvania, 
 Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, Edwards Bates of Missouri, William 
 L. Dayton of New Jersey, John McLean of Ohio, and others 
 who were not expected to draw many votes beyond those of 
 their own states. Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, since 1858, was 
 quietly being pushed in the West by Norman B. Judd and other 
 western champions, but was not widely known in the East be- 
 fore his Cooper Union address in New York City at the end 
 of February, i860. This address was followed by a number of 
 speeches in New England. 
 
 As early as 1855 General William Larimer, Jr., suggested 
 that Cameron could carry Pennsylvania for the presidential 
 nomination. 2 It has already been noted that Cameron's name 
 was suggested by various individuals and newspapers after he 
 returned to the United States Senate. By 1859 organization was 
 taking shape among his followers to push him as Pennsylvania's 
 candidate. Many individuals outside the state, from Wisconsin, 
 Illinois, Massachusetts, Iowa, and Ohio, wrote encouraging let- 
 
THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 205 
 
 ters. Beyond the state boundaries such papers as the New York 
 Herald and the Cincinnati Gazette, looked with favor upon 
 Cameron. 3 
 
 Apparently Lincoln and Cameron had not met before i860, 
 though Lincoln was a member of the House of Representatives 
 from 1847 to 1849, at which time Cameron was in the Senate. 
 On learning that Lincoln was in Philadelphia on February 
 twenty-fifth, Cameron and Wilmot invited him to call on them 
 at their hotel, The Girard. He wrote the next day from New 
 York that he did not receive their message until just as he was 
 leaving the city. He had barely time to step over to The Girard 
 only to learn that Cameron and Wilmot were not in their 
 rooms. He regretted having missed them and hoped for another 
 early opportunity to meet them. 4 
 
 Cameron's organization was perfected to the extent that lit- 
 tle difficulty was encounted in obtaining a resolution favoring 
 his nomination by the People's Party State Convention at Harris- 
 burg in February. 5 His political friends took time by the fore- 
 lock and within a week after his nomination issued a brief bro- 
 chure, rehearsing the Senator's career, private and political. It 
 demonstrated his strong hold upon the great masses of the peo- 
 ple, and set forth the manifold reasons that existed for regard- 
 ing him as the only man who could carry Pennsylvania against 
 the candidate of "the miscalled Democracy." The brochure con- 
 cluded with the hope that "The omnipotent voice of the people 
 will be heard responsive to the nomination of Pennsylvania's 
 choice." 6 
 
 As the Cameron organization began to assume a place of 
 leadership in Pennsylvania politics, particularly during this 
 period just before the Chicago Convention, a great many per- 
 sons wrote seeking funds with which to buy or start newspapers 
 — presumably in his support. On the back of one such letter 
 Cameron wrote: "How strange it is that so many men are 
 governed by a belief that I am willing to buy them." 7 
 
 In December of 1859, when it had become evident that Cam- 
 eron would receive the endorsement of Pennsylvania, Russell 
 Errett, a co-publisher of the Pittsburgh Gazette and a Cameron 
 worker, drew up a letter setting forth the merits of General 
 Cameron and urging support for his nomination at the coming 
 
2o6 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 national convention. He wrote to Cameron, enclosing a draft 
 of this letter, stating his purpose to circularize the delegates of 
 the various states to the Chicago Convention. 8 Before the con- 
 vention met, Errett had received a number of replies to his 
 circular, a few of which he sent to Cameron. In his accom- 
 panying letter, he called Cameron's attention to the fact that, 
 while the answers were in many cases favorable, the writers 
 very carefully abstained from pledges of support. 9 
 
 Cameron had the backing of such Pennsylvania papers as the 
 Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, the Pittsburgh Gazette, and the 
 Pennsylvania Telegraph at the state capital, along with a great 
 many smaller papers scattered over the state. There were many 
 independent papers that looked favorably upon his candidacy 
 and an occasional Democratic paper that supported him. Of 
 course, there were also several that opposed him. Some of these 
 were persuaded to cease their attacks even though they would 
 not swing to his support. R. P. King wrote that sometime before 
 the Chicago Convention the Philadelphia Daily News was in 
 the habit of attacking Cameron with slurs and innuendoes. King 
 called upon one of the editors, I. R. Flanigan, and was successful 
 in prevailing upon him to desist. 10 
 
 David Wilmot wrote to Joseph Casey, editor of the Pennsyl- 
 vania Telegraph, that he believed with Casey that by a prudent 
 and firm course on the part of the Pennsylvania delegation they 
 might be able to nominate General Cameron, and if he were 
 nominated there would be no doubt of his success. 11 Unfor- 
 tunately for Cameron, only a part of the delegation was en- 
 thusiastically for him. Some preferred McLean, and others 
 Bates, 12 but all were pledged to the Senator by the Harrisburg 
 Convention compromise. 
 
 Cameron was never as optimistic concerning his nomination 
 as were his friends. He confessed, soon after the Pennsylvania 
 convention, that he had no expectation of being nominated at 
 Chicago. 13 Ten days before the convention, "Occasional," a 
 Washington correspondent of the Chicago Herald, reported 
 that Cameron asserted that "he does not entertain any anxiety 
 about his own success, and is content provided no personal 
 enemy should be nominated over his head." The writer felt 
 that if Cameron could himself go to the field of contest and 
 
THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 207 
 
 manage his own case it would probably be better for his for- 
 tunes; as it was, his responsibilities in the Senate would keep him 
 in Washington. 14 
 
 Again, in a public address in Harrisburg a week after the 
 Chicago Convention, Cameron expressed himself as having no 
 feelings of personal disappointment at the results in Chicago. 15 
 He was interested in a demonstration in his favor at Chicago. 
 The greater the demonstration for him the greater would be 
 the prestige and honor for him. He therefore directed his ener- 
 gies, and those of his friends, towards making a good showing 
 in the national convention. 
 
 Much was made of the necessity for nominating a candidate 
 acceptable to Pennsylvania for it was felt that the Republicans 
 must carry that state to succeed in i860. The Cincinnati Gazette 
 pointed out in February that General Cameron had an advan- 
 tage, on account of his popularity in his home state and the 
 necessity of carrying it. However, the belief was expressed that, 
 with the combined influence now secured there against the Ad- 
 ministration, Pennsylvania could be carried by any Republican 
 candidate whose views were not ultra and whose record was 
 not obnoxious. This being the case, and in view of the strong 
 claims of the West and the necessity for weakening Douglas, the 
 Gazette raised the question of the desirability of giving pref- 
 erence at Chicago to a western Republican. 16 
 
 Joseph Casey and party left Harrisburg for Chicago on May 
 seventh, to be on hand early in order to confer and mingle with 
 delegates from other states as they arrived, and to circularize 
 them with Cameron material. 17 By the tenth of May, there were 
 more than half a dozen active Cameron men in Chicago, most of 
 them members of the Pennsylvania delegation to the convention. 
 In addition to these there were Illinois friends of Cameron active 
 in his behalf. 18 From the Briggs House, Chicago, Casey wrote 
 on the tenth: "We have determined that when Curtin comes 
 we will put the matter squarely to him and his friends, McClure, 
 Mann, Finney, etc. — they must either stand up with us for your 
 nomination honestly and fairly, or take Seward." Casey be- 
 lieved that Cameron could win but doubted if Seward could, 
 and declared that if the party should be willing to pass over 
 Seward and take a man for expediency, principally for the 
 
2o8 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 sake of carrying Pennsylvania, they must take Pennsylvania's 
 choice. 19 
 
 The correspondent of the Cincinnati Commercial declared 
 on the eleventh, that many delegates to the convention had al- 
 ready arrived. The active friends of Bates, Cameron and others 
 were in Chicago, but there were as yet no Seward leaders on 
 the ground. The same writer noted a few days later that Lin- 
 coln stock was rising fast and that the New England delegates 
 were rapidly leaving Seward, while some of Seward's friends 
 were beginning to despair. 20 Greeley sent a dispatch to the 
 Tribune on the eleventh declaring that Cameron's friends from 
 Pennsylvania were in Chicago in force and were very clam- 
 orous. On the sixteenth, Murat Halstead reported to the Cin- 
 cinnati Commercial that Pennsylvanians were insisting strongly 
 on Cameron as the only man who could carry the state with 
 certainty. They were marching that night with music, rockets 
 and Roman candles. He believed that next to Cameron they 
 were for McLean and then for Lincoln. 21 
 
 There were friends of Cameron who believed that there 
 would be a strong swing towards him just as soon as his strength 
 was demonstrated in the convention. 22 Another friend noted 
 that Cameron and Lincoln stock were rising. He believed that 
 Cameron could succeed, beyond a doubt, if the Pennsylvania 
 delegation would only stand firmly for him. He warned Cam- 
 eron, however, that there were Judases in the camp, naming 
 William B. Mann in particular and expressing fear that there 
 were others like him. 23 
 
 The friends of Elihu B. Washburne kept up a very active 
 correspondence with him during the four months prior to the 
 Chicago Convention. The letters indicate that the writers were 
 interested primarily in principles and chances of success rather 
 than in men. Many were favorable to Seward but skeptical of 
 his ability to win. Many others believed that Lincoln was the 
 only candidate who could defeat Douglas if he should be the 
 candidate of the Democratic Party. 24 Norman B. Judd of Chica- 
 go, chairman of the State Republican Committee, had been 
 grooming Lincoln and working on detailed party organization 
 in Illinois down into every precinct for almost two years. 25 It is 
 
THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 209 
 
 rather significant that Lincoln's name was rarely mentioned by 
 the Eastern press down to the eve of the convention. 26 
 
 Cameron's personal choice for the nomination, excepting of 
 course himself, was William H. Seward of New York, whom 
 he recognized as the foremost man in the Republican Party. 
 Another important factor was that the New Yorker held the 
 same views on the tariff as did Cameron. 27 From the spring of 
 1859 Cameron lent his personal support to the candidacy of 
 Seward. He remained steadfast in the face of objections of many 
 of his friends, who strongly doubted the availability of Seward 
 and the wisdom of nominating him. 
 
 On March twenty-first, a Philadelphia correspondent of the 
 New York Times noted it was currently reported that Cam- 
 eron was busily engaged in forwarding Seward's interests 
 throughout the interior of the state and remarked that "the 
 adroitness of General Cameron in managing the political wires 
 is proverbial." This coupled with his astuteness among men and 
 his devotion to his friends made Cameron a dangerous oppo- 
 nent. 1 '* Ten days after this was written, Seward was the guest of 
 Cameron at his home in Harrisburg. Together they visited both 
 houses of the legislature. 29 In reporting this Harrisburg trip to 
 Thurlow Weed, who was his campaign manager, Seward wrote: 
 
 He took me to his house, told me all was right. He was for me, and 
 Pennsylvania would be. It might happen that they would cast the first 
 ballot for him, but he was not in, etc. He brought the whole legislature 
 of both parties to see me, feasted them gloriously, and they were in the 
 main so generous as to embarrass me. 80 
 
 Preston King thought Seward would be the nominee and be- 
 lieved that Seward himself was confident of it. He believed the 
 Pennsylvania delegation would be chosen unitedly for Cameron 
 and thought that when it became evident he could not get the 
 nomination they would prefer Seward next. 31 Pershine Smith 
 noted that there was strong opposition to Seward in some quar- 
 ters of his own state but believed it could be beaten down. He 
 wrote also that Seward was confident of the support of Penn- 
 sylvania. 32 
 
 After the state convention at Harrisburg had pledged to sup- 
 port Cameron, he felt that he should be sent to Chicago. He 
 
2io SIMON CAMERON 
 
 assured Seward that all of the delegates from Philadelphia but 
 one were safe, and that he was quite anxious to meet Thurlow 
 Weed soon. Seward desired very much that Weed should please 
 Cameron. Seward would be delighted if Cameron would go to 
 Chicago, and wanted Weed to see that no blame should fall on 
 him (Seward) if Cameron were not able to go. 33 
 
 As the time for the convention drew nearer, more and more 
 opposition to the nomination of Seward became evident. Wilmot 
 wrote to Cameron, in March, that Seward seemed to be gaining 
 and that his nomination would be pressed with zeal and energy. 
 However, he could not feel that Seward was available and be- 
 lieved that Lincoln would make a much stronger candidate. A 
 month later he expressed his belief that Seward could not be 
 elected if nominated. 34 During March, April and May, Lyman 
 Trumbull received a large number of letters from constituents 
 and friends in Illinois and Indiana expressing beliefs similar to 
 those of Wilmot, and showing preference for almost any can- 
 didate in the field above Seward. 35 John A Nichols, a Chicago 
 friend of Cameron, informed him that the general impression 
 in the West was that Seward and Cameron were working to- 
 gether and that the strength of both would be united and cast 
 in the convention for the stronger of the two. He declared he 
 could not believe this to be true, for Cameron must be aware 
 that with Seward as the candidate it would be impossible Tor 
 the Republicans to carry Illinois. 36 
 
 The impression gained by Nichols in the West was also cur- 
 rent in Washington. "Occasional," a correspondent of the Chi- 
 cago Herald, wrote from there on May tenth: 
 
 The friends of Mr. Seward rely upon Senator Cameron to assist them 
 in putting him in nomination at Chicago on Wednesday next. The lat- 
 ter has been for some time regarded as the principal engineer of the 
 Seward movement outside New York and New England. There is a 
 good deal of shrewdness in this movement of Senator Cameron. Con- 
 fident that he will receive the unit vote of Pennsylvania himself, and 
 sure that Governor Seward will have a large plurality on the first ballot, 
 he is not without hope that if the favorite of New York shall fail, he 
 may then receive the votes of his friends and become a compromise 
 candidate. I do not think that General Cameron is entirely certain of 
 the success of Mr. Seward, although he seems to have allowed it to be 
 
THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 211 
 
 generally understood that he prefers him to all other candidates, inas- 
 much as he regards him as the leader of the Republican organization. 37 
 
 A week before the convention Weed wrote that he would be 
 unable to journey to Washington for a conference with Cam- 
 eron before going to Chicago. He hoped that Cameron and Se- 
 ward would put their heads together and let him know the re- 
 sults of their deliberations. He also hoped that Cameron would 
 have a confidential friend in Chicago with whom he could 
 communicate. 38 
 
 Chicago was crowded with visitors days before the conven- 
 tion opened, and throngs milled about the streets day and night 
 during the three-day session. New York sent the largest num- 
 ber of any state save Illinois, but Pennsylvania was not far be- 
 hind, the number of Pennsylvanians being estimated by Curtin 
 at twelve hundred, and by others at as high as two thousand. 39 
 The Tremont Hotel, at the corner of Lake and Dearborn 
 Streets, was the general exchange or headquarters where much 
 of the caucusing was done. Thurlow Weed set up Seward head- 
 quarters at the Richmond House. The Pennsylvanians were de- 
 clared to be the noisiest crowd there, but, for want of union, 
 impotent. 
 
 The Republicans had marked up numerous victories over the 
 Democrats since 1856 both in state and national elections. From 
 the Charleston disruption 40 they received new inspiration and 
 impetus. Former possibility was suddenly changed to strong 
 probability of success in the ensuing presidential election. The 
 delegates were not only quickened with new zeal for their 
 principles but also the growing chances of success spurred them 
 to fresh efforts in behalf of their candidates. Those who had 
 been prominently named represented various localities and were 
 diverse in antecedents. Seward was a former Whig with strong 
 antislavery views; Lincoln, a moderate antislavery Whig; Salmon 
 P. Chase, an antislavery Democrat and one of the successful in- 
 spirers and promoters of the new party; Cameron, a former Dem- 
 ocratic leader of an influential tariff state; Dayton, a Whig; and 
 Bates, an antislavery Whig. 
 
 The movements against Seward developed with remarkable 
 force during the week of the convention. Seward had been in 
 
2i2 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 public life more than two decades during which time he had 
 taken a strong position on many questions and had thus incurred 
 violent opposition which could not now be readily overcome. 
 x\n important element of the Republican Party in several states 
 had been connected with the "American," or Know-Nothing, 
 Party, and still cherished some of the principles of that party. 
 Some years earlier Seward had been a determined foe of that 
 party and it was now remembered against him. Although he 
 was far more conservative in i860 than in 1850, the conservative 
 elements of the party tended to remember his radicalism of the 
 earlier date. 
 
 Curtin and many of his friends earnestly opposed the nomi- 
 nation of Seward, declaring it would almost certainly result in 
 a Democratic triumph in Pennsylvania in October, and thus 
 also in November. Similarly, Henry S. Lane, the Republican 
 candidate for governor of Indiana, believed that Seward's 
 nomination would lead to a Democratic victory in his state. 
 This opposition produced considerable impression upon Seward's 
 friends in New England and diminished their zeal in his sup- 
 port. Many of the friends of Cameron declared that in no event 
 would Pennsylvania cast her vote for Seward. A newspaper 
 correspondent observed that some of Cameron's friends were 
 still hopeful that he might receive the nomination, and de- 
 clared that if the Pennsylvania delegation could be held as a 
 unit in his support throughout all of the deliberations of the 
 convention, he would certainly succeed in the end. The corres- 
 pondent believed, however, that from what he had seen and 
 heard, Cameron would not receive the vote of the whole state 
 delegation even on the first ballot, and that probably it would 
 eventually be given to Lincoln. 41 
 
 Although the Pennsylvania delegation was sharply divided on 
 its choice of a candidate, after the complimentary vote for Cam- 
 eron, which was as far as many of the delegation expected to go 
 for him, there was a general desire to avoid factional contests 
 in the delegation because of its possible effect on the contest 
 for governor. Repeated conferences of the delegation were held 
 after its arrival in Chicago. After much maneuvering for ad- 
 vantage of position, and after it had become evident to many 
 that Cameron had little chance of receiving the nomination, 
 
 
THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 213 
 
 the leaders of the factions agreed that the delegation should 
 decide who among the available candidates should be preferred. 
 The anti-Cameron men, in conference, had already decided to 
 propose to the delegation Cameron as the first choice; Judge 
 John McLean 42 of Ohio, second; and Lincoln, third. Since Mc- 
 Lean stood no more chance than Cameron, the third choice was 
 the only one of moment. When the delegation met to decide 
 this matter Cameron and McLean were made first and second 
 choices, respectively, by common consent, but on the third 
 choice the Cameron leaders urged the selection of Bates. By 
 vote, Lincoln was declared the third choice of the Pennsylvania 
 delegation over Bates by a majority of three. 43 
 
 Despite all the opposition to Seward from various quarters, 
 it was the opinion of some of the newspaper men, at midnight 
 after the second day, that the opposition could not concentrate 
 on any candidate and that he would certainly be nominated. 
 Greeley telegraphed that opinion to the Tribune and Halstead 
 telegraphed the same to the Cincinnati Commercial.** 
 
 The first and second days, Wednesday and Thursday, were 
 taken up with organization, committee reports, and the adop- 
 tion of a platform. David Wilmot was made temporary chair- 
 man, and George Ashmun of Massachusetts, permanent presi- 
 dent of the convention. The platform enbodying the principles 
 upon which the Republican Party would seek to win the sup- 
 port of the country in the coming election was adopted "amid 
 a perfect furor of applause." It contained provision for pro- 
 tective tariff though the terms were perhaps not strong enough 
 to suit some Pennsylvanians. 45 The convention adjourned until 
 the next day. 
 
 The hours between adjournment on Thursday and assembly 
 on Friday were among the most eventful in Republican Party 
 history. In that period plans were laid which culminated in the 
 nomination of Lincoln. 
 
 A majority of delegates were favorable to the nomination of 
 Seward until great doubt was raised as to his ability to carry 
 New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Indiana. The leaders 
 felt that to be successful in November at least three of these 
 four states must be carried. The concensus of opinion of the 
 delegates from these doubtful states was that Seward could not 
 
2i 4 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 carry even one of them. The Indiana delegates were uninstruct- 
 ed. 46 Illinois had instructed its delegates for Lincoln, New 
 Jersey for Dayton, and Pennsylvania for Cameron. Eight months 
 before the convention the Boston Daily Atlas had noted that 
 these four states could not be considered sure for the Republi- 
 can candidate in i860 and declared: "We would be almost 
 willing to let the delegates from those four states nominate the 
 candidate." 47 
 
 On Tuesday, on the eve of the convention, a committee from 
 the New England states, headed by John A. Andrew of Massa- 
 chusetts, visited the delegates from the four doubtful states. It 
 was declared to be the desire of all that the party rather than 
 any particular individual should succeed. While the New Eng- 
 enders were in favor of Seward, when it was made apparent 
 to them that he could not carry the doubtful states and that 
 some other man could, they were willing to give up Seward 
 and go for the man who could make victory more certain. 
 Andrew declared that unless the delegates from the four doubt- 
 ful states could agree upon some one candidate, whom they 
 thought could carry these states, then, "we from New England 
 will vote for our choice William H. Seward of New York; 
 but if you will unite upon some one candidate and present his 
 name, we will give him enough votes to place him in nomina- 
 
 tion." 48 
 
 The delegates of the four doubtful states were much impress- 
 ed with the necessity of uniting upon some one candidate. A 
 subconvention of delegates of these four states met at the Cam- 
 eron headquarters late Thursday morning, and organized with 
 Andrew H. Reeder in the chair. There was much discussion 
 but no agreement could be reached. Then Thomas Dudley of 
 the New Jersey delegation proposed to Judd of Illinois that the 
 matter should be referred to a committee of three from each 
 state, to be selected by the delegates of the respective states. A 
 motion to this effect was carried, and each state's delegation ap- 
 pointed its committee. The Illinois committee was headed by 
 Judge David Davis; the Indiana committee by Caleb B. Smith; 
 the Pennsylvania committee consisted of David Wilmot, Wil- 
 liam B. Mann, and Samuel A. Purviance; 49 and on New Jersey's 
 
THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 215 
 
 committee were Thomas H. Dudley, Frederick T. Freyling- 
 huysen, and Ephraim March. 
 
 This committee of twelve met, after the adjournment of the 
 convention on Thursday afternoon, and was in session from six 
 until eleven that evening. Nothing was accomplished until the 
 last hour of their session when it was proposed to ascertain, as 
 far as they could, the votes that each of their three candidates, 
 Lincoln, Cameron, and Dayton, would be able to command in 
 the convention. It was found that Lincoln was the strongest 
 candidate. This fact being ascertained to the satisfaction of all 
 the committee, a member from New Jersey asked the com- 
 mittee from Pennsylvania whether, if New Jersey would give 
 up Dayton and vote for Lincoln, the friends of Cameron would 
 also agree to give their support to Lincoln. The Pennsylvania 
 committee stated that they had no power to bind their co- 
 delegates but they would recommend it to them, provided the 
 committees from the other states would make similar recom- 
 mendations to their delegates. After some discussion, this prop- 
 osition was agreed to, and Abraham Lincoln, as far as this com- 
 mittee of twelve from these doubtful states was concerned, was 
 agreed upon as the candidate for the presidency. Before the 
 committee adjourned it was agreed to regard their proceedings 
 as confidential except to those who were immediately interested. 
 In consequence of this injunction, very little was known of their 
 action when the delegates assembled in convention on Friday 
 morning. 50 
 
 After the committee adjourned Thursday night a meeting of 
 the New Jersey delegates friendly to Dayton was called at the 
 Richmond House at one o'clock. They were informed of what 
 had been done by the committee and ratified the action agree- 
 ing to vote for Lincoln after a complimentary vote for Dayton. 51 
 The Pennsylvania delegation did not meet until after the con- 
 vention had assembled and the balloting had begun. 
 
 In the meantime, after midnight of Thursday, David Davis 
 and Leonard Swett went into conference with some of the 
 Cameron men, J. P. Sanderson, Alexander Cummings and per- 
 haps others, in an effort to obtain assurance from the Cameron 
 men that they would support Lincoln. In this conference, it 
 was apparently arranged that after a complimentary vote for 
 
216 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Cameron on the first ballot the Cameron support would be 
 thrown to Lincoln. In return for this it seems to have been 
 agreed by Lincoln's managers that, if he were elected, Cameron 
 should be given a place in the Cabinet. 52 
 
 Swett, in an account of the negotiations between the Illinois 
 and the Pennsylvania leaders, said: 
 
 The Seward men were laboring with delegates from that State [Penn- 
 sylvania], and so were the friends of Mr. Lincoln, and both were hope- 
 ful; but in the small hours of Friday morning, in a room of the Tremont 
 House, two of Mr. Lincoln's friends and two of Mr. Cameron's being 
 present, our arguments prevailed, and the Cameron men agreed to 
 come to us on the second ballot. This they did right nobly and gave 
 us forty-eight votes. 53 
 
 Neither Cameron nor Lincoln was in Chicago during the 
 meeting of the convention. Any bargain that was made was 
 consummated by their friends without the direct knowledge of 
 either, but was of distinct advantage to both. Without absolute 
 proof the probabilities of the bargain are yet so strong as to be 
 almost conclusive. Lincoln's friends acted in direct violation of 
 his instruction not to bind him. Cameron's friends, knowing his 
 preference for Seward but believing they foresaw the inability 
 of Seward to command sufficient votes for the nomination, de- 
 cided to use their vote in such a way as to gain advantage for 
 their leader. 
 
 On Friday morning the cry of want of availability, which 
 had been pressed with vigor for some days, took on a more defi- 
 nite form with reports that the Republican candidates for gov- 
 ernor in some of the doubtful states were threatening to with- 
 draw in the event of Seward's nomination. The Chicago Press 
 and Tribune contained a last appeal to the convention not to 
 nominate Seward. 54 
 
 When the convention was called to order, at ten o'clock, the 
 Wigwam was crowded to capacity and tens of thousands were 
 on the outside, all in a high state of excitement. Everybody 
 within the building gave breathless attention to the proceedings. 
 Soon attention was turned to the choosing of candidates, which 
 was done merely by presenting the names without the nominat- 
 ing speeches so familiar in a later day. William M. Evarts of 
 
THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 217 
 
 New York nominated Seward; Norman B. Judd of Illinois, 
 Lincoln; Thomas H. Dudley of New Jersey, Dayton; Andrew 
 H. Reeder of Pennsylvania, Cameron; D. X. Cartter of Ohio, 
 Chase; Francis (Frank) P. Blair, Jr., of Missouri, Bates. These 
 nominations were in turn seconded by other supporters. The 
 wild cheering, particularly for Seward and for Lincoln, was 
 almost deafening. It was more intense for the latter, whose man- 
 agers had succeeded, by a ruse, in getting a greater number of 
 Lincoln followers into the hall. 55 The tremendous applause for 
 Seward and Lincoln seemed to indicate that the choice lay be- 
 tween them. 
 
 When the cheering at length subsided, the chairman an- 
 nounced that balloting would begin. The first ballot gave com- 
 plimentary votes to the numerous favorite sons and showed a 
 distinct popular preference for Seward and Lincoln. Seward 
 received one hundred seventy-three and one-half votes; Lin- 
 coln, one hundred two; Cameron, fifty and one-half; Chase, 
 forty-nine; and Bates, forty-eight; while forty-two were scat- 
 tered. 56 Cameron did not receive the united support of Penn- 
 sylvania, which cast fifty-four votes. Forty-seven and one-half 
 votes came from Pennsylvania, one from Virginia, one from 
 Iowa, and one from Nebraska. On the first ballot Pennsylvania 
 gave Lincoln four votes, Seward one and one-half, and McLean 
 
 d 
 one. 
 
 On the second roll call, Pennsylvania was not in readiness 
 when the state was called as her delegates had retired for consul- 
 tation. The frequent retirement of the Pennsylvania group for 
 consultation became one of the jokes of the convention. 57 If 
 Pennsylvania was to act with decision for Lincoln, now was the 
 time to do so. Judge S. Newton Pettis, one of the strong sup- 
 porters of Cameron, disregarding the previous action of the 
 Pennsylvania caucus whereby McLean had been designated as 
 the delegation's second choice, moved that on the second ballot 
 the vote of Pennsylvania be cast solidly for Lincoln. 58 Not all 
 were willing to go for Lincoln, but Pennsylvania's second ballot 
 was cast forty-eight for Lincoln, two and one-half for Seward, 
 two and one-half for McLean, and one for Cameron. The sec- 
 ond roll call gave Seward one hundred eighty-four and one- 
 half votes and Lincoln one hundred eighty-one. The whole 
 
2i8 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 number of votes cast was four hundred sixty-five. The number 
 necessary for a choice was two hundred thirty-three. Thus 
 Seward was within forty-eight and one-half votes of the nomi- 
 nation. The break for Lincoln, however, told a story; Seward 
 on the second ballot had gained but eleven votes while Lincoln 
 had gained seventy-nine. 59 
 
 The third ballot showed more shifts to Lincoln, giving him 
 two hundred thirty-one and one-half votes. Pennsylvania this 
 time gave him fifty-two votes and McLean two. Seward's total 
 dropped to one hundred eighty. Lincoln lacked but one and 
 one-half votes of the number sufficient for nomination. Before 
 the ballot was closed D. K. Cartter, chairman of the Ohio dele- 
 gation, gained the attention of the presiding officer and then of 
 everyone else. He announced the change of four of Ohio's votes 
 from Chase to Lincoln. Many other changes were subsequently 
 announced, until Lincoln had three hundred fifty-four votes. 
 By this time bedlam had broken loose within the Wigwam and 
 soon spread to the crowded streets without. When a measure of 
 silence had been restored and the vote declared, Evarts, spokes- 
 man of the New York delegation, mounted the rostrum and 
 moved that the nomination of Lincoln be made unanimous. 60 
 This nomination was, as it has been declared, one of the very 
 excellent examples of the triumph of availability and of party 
 expediency over prominence and personal popularity. 61 
 
 After the dinner recess, it required but a short session to se- 
 lect a candidate for vice president. Cassius M. Clay of Kentucky 
 and Hannibal Hamlin of Maine were the most prominent con- 
 tenders. Clay was perhaps more popular with the crowd, but 
 Hamlin was more available from the viewpoint of geography 
 and past political affiliations. Hamlin was nominated on the 
 second ballot 62 
 
 On the day after the close of the Chicago Convention, the 
 Philadelphia Press published a special dispatch from Washing- 
 ton stating that the Seward men there loudly intimated that 
 Colonel Curtin and his friends had aided in giving the vote that 
 put Lincoln on the track for the presidency. 63 There was no 
 suggestion of blame placed upon the Cameron men for Seward's 
 defeat. 
 
 Dr. John S. Bobbs, a member of the Indiana delegation and a 
 
THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 219 
 
 friend of Cameron, wrote that the latter had many friends in 
 the Indiana delegation and blamed the defection within the 
 Pennsylvania group for the failure of Indiana to show strength 
 for Cameron. He declared that "we were as much mortified 
 as astonished at the impromptu stampede of the Pennsylvania 
 delegation from you to Mr. Lincoln." 64 The Press correspond- 
 ent in Chicago declared: "It was generally admitted that had 
 Pennsylvania come out here with a candidate and steadfastly 
 adhered to him, the nomination would have been yielded to 
 her." 65 
 
 The Pennsylvania Telegraph carried the names of the candi- 
 dates nominated at Chicago at its masthead on May twenty-first. 
 The editor praised General Cameron as the first choice of the 
 people of Pennsylvania and expressed the belief that he could 
 have been nominated if the Pennsylvania delegation had pre- 
 sented a united front. He gave vent to a blast of wrath against 
 certain Philadelphia politicians, whose path Cameron had cross- 
 ed in his long political career, whom he charged with the use 
 of foul and disreputable means to encompass the defeat of the 
 choice of the People's Party of Pennsylvania. The editor fur- 
 ther declared that Seward had many warm and sincere friends 
 in the Pennsylvania delegation. Nevertheless it was conceded 
 that he could not carry the state; consequently Lincoln was 
 heartily supported by the friends of Cameron, and with their 
 aid he received the nomination. 66 
 
 Ten days after the convention adjourned, Russell Errett wrote 
 to Cameron from Pittsburgh. He too felt great resentment 
 against William B. Mann and those under his influence whose 
 work destroyed Cameron's chances from the start. He declared 
 that some New York men blamed Cameron for Lincoln's nomi- 
 nation. Errett admitted that it was the work of the Pennsyl- 
 vania delegation but not of Cameron's real friends. The men, 
 he said, who represented Cameron, and had a right to speak for 
 him, were opposed to it. 67 It seems from the accounts of Errett, 
 Casey, and A4cClure, all of whom were at the Chicago Con- 
 vention, that even the Cameron men were not always working 
 in harmony. 
 
 Harrisburg was the scene of a great Republican political 
 meeting on Friday night. May twentv-first. The Chicago Con- 
 
2 2o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 vention had nominated candidates a week earlier and this was 
 Pennsylvania's grand ratification meeting. Cameron came from 
 Washington and was made chairman of the meeting. He de- 
 livered the principal speech of the evening. After some passing 
 remarks on his own candidacy, he was reported to have as- 
 serted that: 
 
 He had hoped that the person fixed upon would be the favorite son of 
 New York, who was an able and zealous advocate of all measures for 
 the protection and encouragement of free white labor, while represent- 
 ing a State [New York] whose prosperity mainly depends upon the 
 commerce of her metropolis, he had the foresight which enabled him 
 to remember that the coal and iron of Pennsylvania and the agriculture 
 products of the other States must be combined in order that their full 
 effect and force might be brought to bear upon the great progressive 
 interests of his own. 
 
 The first third of Cameron's address was devoted to flattering 
 allusions to William H. Seward, and to explaining why he had 
 favored Seward for the nomination. Although some had doubted 
 his availability, Cameron never had. Following these compli- 
 mentary remarks on Seward, he gave a most emphatic en- 
 dorsement of the convention's choice of Lincoln and Hamlin. 
 Whether or not it was a studied oversight, he failed to mention 
 Andrew G. Curtin, Pennsylvania's candidate for governor. 
 However, after more speeches, interspersed with music, resolu- 
 tions were adopted for Lincoln, Hamlin, and Curtin. 68 
 
 McClure complimented Cameron's Harrisburg speech but 
 felt that the Senator's partiality for Seward made him underesti- 
 mate the Pennsylvania prejudice against that leader. McClure 
 also thought that Cameron's political foes within the state ranks 
 must be pretty thoroughly silenced "by the magnanimity and 
 forbearance of your friends at Chicago, and the cordial manner 
 in which they and you have led off in support of the ticket." 69 
 Wilmot, later in the summer, endeavored to explain to Cam- 
 eron how the feeling of the unavailability of Seward grew at 
 the convention and expressed his belief that Cameron would 
 have acted as the Pennsylvania delegation did if he had been 
 present. Since it was the votes of Cameron's friends that nomi- 
 nated Lincoln, Wilmot felt that Lincoln would treat Cameron 
 
THE CHICAGO CONVENTION 221 
 
 and his friends well. 70 In a letter written to Trumbull soon after 
 the nomination, Lincoln asked him to give his respects to the 
 Republican Senators; "and especially to Mr. Hamlin, Mr. Se- 
 ward, General Cameron, and Mr. Wade." 71 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 i860 ELECTIONS, SHORT SESSION, CABINET 
 
 The October contest in Pennsylvania was looked upon as 
 the pivot of the November struggle. Republican politi- 
 cians declared that Pennsylvania had been lost in 1856 only be- 
 cause the Democrats expended thousands of dollars more than 
 the Republicans were able to raise. They were determined that 
 this would not be the case in i860. From the beginning of the 
 campaign the Pennsylvania State Central Committee worked 
 New York particularly, for funds, and did not return empty- 
 handed. 1 J. P. Sanderson, one of Cameron's ardent supporters, 
 became disgusted with the actions of some of those responsible 
 for the campaign. On October first, he declared that McClure 
 was in New York begging for money and others were soliciting 
 by mail, adding: "I fear the whole crew are more active in get- 
 ting money for themselves than they are in securing success at 
 the election." 2 That Pennsylvania was not so desperately in 
 need of funds is evidenced by the fact that Cameron and others 
 of the state were contributing considerable sums through the 
 national committee to aid in the election in Illinois. 3 
 
 The State Central Committee was active in bringing out- 
 standing political speakers to Pennsylvania to aid in the cam- 
 paign. Carl Schurz, a member of the Republican National Com- 
 mittee from Wisconsin, was one so employed. McClure urged 
 him to give all the time possible to Pennsylvania. "There is some 
 danger in Pennsylvania^ he wrote. "We can afford to lose In- 
 diana in October but the loss of Pennsylvania would be a death 
 blow to Lincoln." Schurz agreed to spend most of September 
 there and to devote special attention to the German portion of 
 the population. 4 The New York Herald quoted one of its "in- 
 telligent" Philadelphia correspondents as saying that both Cur- 
 tin and General Cameron recently had admitted that "if it were 
 not for the Presidential contest, in the immediate rear of our 
 
i860 ELECTIONS, SHORT SESSION, CABINET 223 
 
 Governor's election, Foster would beat our man by twenty 
 thousand." 5 
 
 The tariff issue played a great part in the i860 elections in 
 Pennsylvania, both state and national. The Democrats had car- 
 ried the state in the presidential election of 1856, and the one for 
 the governorship in 1857. The country was then in a state of 
 general prosperity which the Democrats boastingly ascribed 
 to the well-defined and long-continued policies of their party. 
 The financial distress of 1857 followed close upon the heels of 
 the election of that year, and from that time the Democratic 
 Party was embarrassed in Pennsylvania. With a President of 
 their own choice, with both branches of Congress and all de- 
 partments of the government under their control, and with a 
 tariff of their own making, a serious disaster had come upon the 
 country. The promises of their leaders failed to materialize. The 
 Republicans in Pennsylvania saw their advantage and pressed it 
 by renewed and urgent demands for a protective tariff. They 
 succeeded in obtaining recognition of the protective system in 
 the Chicago platform in i860, and during the campaign Curtin 
 gave a greater portion of his time to the discussion of the tariff 
 and financial issues than to all others combined. The majority 
 of the voters of Pennsylvania were convinced that the Repub- 
 lican Party would espouse and maintain the cause of protection 
 as against the free-trade tendencies of the Democratic Party. 6 
 
 The election in Pennsylvania, on October ninth, was a glori- 
 ous success for the People's Party. Curtin was swept into the 
 governorship over his Democratic opponent, Henry D. Foster, 
 with a majority exceeding thirty-two thousand. The People's 
 Party also increased its majorities in both houses of the legislature. 
 In the senate it obtained twenty-seven seats to the Democrats' 
 six, and in the house seventy-one to its opponents' twenty- 
 nine. 7 This gave the Republicans ninety-eight to thirty-five on 
 joint ballot. Since this group would elect Pennsylvania's Sena- 
 tors it insured two Republican Senators after March fourth. 8 
 The election had returned only five Democratic members of 
 Pennsylvania's delegation of twenty-five in the national House 
 of Representatives. E. Pershine Smith wrote to Henry C. Carey 
 of Philadelphia that the state's victory was unquestionably of 
 great value to the Republicans in New York and elsewhere. 
 
224 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 "It makes that easier which would otherwise have been not 
 doubtful but difficult." 9 
 
 Curtin had been elected with the support of Cameron men. It 
 became, therefore, the concern of Cameron that in the forma- 
 tion of Curtin's cabinet there should be some recognition of his 
 element of the party. There were many prominent Curtin men 
 who were being pressed vigorously for cabinet positions. Cam- 
 eron had many friends who had sincerely supported Curtin, 
 and they earnestly appealed to the Governor-elect for recog- 
 nition of Cameron's friends in the state administration as a stroke 
 for party harmony. A compromise was arranged whereby Sam- 
 uel A. Purviance, former congressman and long-time friend and 
 supporter of Cameron, should become attorney-general under 
 Governor Curtin. 10 
 
 During the course of the campaign the friendly feeling for 
 Cameron, at the Lincoln headquarters in Springfield, had been 
 expressed from time to time; and frequently some little service 
 had been requested or information on the progress in Pennsyl- 
 vania had been asked. In June it had been suggested that some 
 of the newspapers in Philadelphia should be courted for better 
 relations to the Republican campaign. Leaders at the Lincoln 
 headquarters had asked that the attention of General Cameron 
 and other Pennsylvanians be directed to the matter. 11 
 
 Not until August first did Cameron write to Lincoln his 
 congratulations upon the nomination. He then explained that 
 he had waited until he could form a positive opinion of the 
 election in Pennsylvania. He now felt that Lincoln would get 
 the state beyond the shadow of a doubt, and his friends could 
 occupy their time in making Illinois and Indiana safe. Camer- 
 on stated that his friends were pleased with Lincoln's tariff 
 attitude while a member of Congress. Lincoln had sent, for 
 Cameron's examination, his personal notes of congressional 
 speeches on the tariff issue. Cameron expressed faith in Lincoln's 
 good intentions to stand by Pennsylvania's interests particularly 
 concerning her coal and iron. Beyond that they had no desires. 12 
 Lincoln replied that he was glad to hear the good news from 
 Pennsylvania "from a reliable source." Judge Davis, he said, 
 would call upon Cameron in a few days. He instructed that 
 nothing about the tariff speeches must get into the newspapers. 13 
 
i860 ELECTIONS, SHORT SESSION, CABINET 225 
 
 The leaders of the People's Party did not relax their efforts 
 after they had carried Pennsylvania in October by a large ma- 
 jority, but determined to make an even better showing in the 
 national contest in November. Their efforts were satisfactorily 
 rewarded. 
 
 As Lincoln and his friends in Springfield awaited news of 
 the election returns, telegrams began coming in from various 
 parts of the country. These reports on the evening of election 
 day showed the trend. A dispatch from Pittsburgh announced, 
 "Allegheny County 10,000 majority for Lincoln;" another from 
 Philadelphia followed, "15,000 plurality, and 5,000 majority 
 over all." A feeling of surprise and pleasure spread over the 
 group. Lincoln remarked that this was far better than he had 
 expected. The heavy swing of Pennsylvania was confirmed 
 about midnight by the following brief but pertinent dispatch 
 from Cameron: "Hon. A. Lincoln: Pennsylvania, 70,000 for 
 you. New York same, Glory enough. S. Cameron." 14 The re- 
 sult of the tabulation in Pennsylvania showed Lincoln with a 
 majority of almost sixty thousand. 15 Although he polled but 
 forty per cent of the national vote it was distributed in such 
 manner as to give him one hundred eighty electoral votes to one 
 hundred twenty-three for his three opponents. Lincoln's pop- 
 ular vote exceeded that of Douglas, his nearest competitor, by 
 nearly fivt hundred thousand. In reality it was not so large, be- 
 cause by a fusion arrangement, most of the Democratic votes of 
 Pennsylvania were counted for Breckinridge. The Republicans 
 had elected their candidate for the presidency in their second 
 national contest. 
 
 Pennsylvania was due to elect a Senator to succeed Bigler, 
 whose term would expire on March fourth; and, if Cameron 
 went into Lincoln's Cabinet, would also elect one to fill out his 
 remaining two years. There were many aspirants, including Wil- 
 mot, Stevens, Edgar Cowan, McClure, Reeder, and J. K. Moor- 
 head. Some of these, such as Wilmot and Moorhead, actively 
 appealed to Cameron for his aid and support. Reeder and Moor- 
 head both expressed willingness to be set aside without pre- 
 judice to Cameron if doing so would advance Cameron's inter- 
 ests. Reeder thought that Wilmot and Cowan would make good 
 men for the two places but feared both would want the long 
 
226 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 term. Others kept Cameron informed of the progress of the 
 campaign and suggested compromises between Cameron can- 
 didates and the possibility of proper concessions on the sides of 
 both the Cameron and the Curtin factions in order to preserve 
 peace and harmony. Cowan was favored by the Curtin faction 
 but it was believed that he could be handled by Cameron, as he 
 was very favorable to the appointment of the latter to Lincoln's 
 Cabinet. Some suggested the postponement of the choice of 
 Senators until Cameron's appointment should be assured and 
 both Senators could be elected at the same time, feeling that 
 this would facilitate compromise between the Republican fac- 
 tions. 16 
 
 Shortly before the election the press declared that appear- 
 ances indicated the nomination of Cowan with Wilmot as his 
 strongest opponent. A project was discussed in Republican po- 
 litical circles to appoint a committee of friends to reconcile the 
 interests of the two, and it was recommended that one of the 
 parties take the long senatorial term and the other the vacancy 
 occasioned by General Cameron's expected resignation. 17 The 
 party caucus, on January seventh, nominated Cowan on the 
 sixth ballot with fifty-eight votes to thirty-eight for Wilmot, 
 and two for a third candidate. 18 The election took place the 
 next day, with the expected result. Edgar Cowan was elected 
 over his Democratic opponent, Henry D. Foster, by what 
 turned out to be a strictly party vote of ninety-eight to thirty- 
 five. 19 
 
 J. P. Sanderson had a two-hour interview with Cowan, very 
 soon after his election, in the interest of Cameron. Cowan ex- 
 pressed himself as highly pleased with Cameron's behavior and 
 said that he would cordially and fully co-operate with him. He 
 would write to Lincoln at once and go to Illinois to see him 
 later; he preferred to go quietly without the public's knowledge. 
 Sanderson assured Cameron that he had a man (Cowan) in the 
 Senate who would be right and who was anxious to work with 
 him. 20 
 
 B. Rush Petrikin travelled by train with Wilmot two days 
 after the election. He learned that Wilmot had at first felt that 
 Cameron was responsible for his defeat in the caucus, but, after 
 reflection, had come to the conclusion that McClure had been 
 
i860 ELECTIONS, SHORT SESSION, CABINET 227 
 
 false and treacherous to his interests. Though Cameron's op- 
 ponents had been working on Wilmot, they had failed to win 
 him to their side. He was of course hurt by the result, but Petri- 
 kin thought that Wilmot would now be willing to succeed 
 Cameron for the short term. 21 
 
 Cameron's resignation upon appointment as Secretary of War 
 opened the way for the election of another Senator. This ini- 
 tiated a scurry for his seat with numerous letters to him seeking 
 support for one candidate or another. On March twelfth the 
 house nominated thirty-one persons as candidates to fill the va- 
 cancy, including Wilmot, Thaddeus Stevens, and Thomas Wil- 
 liams. Wilmot received the Republican caucus nomination, and 
 was, in the joint session, an easy victor over William Welsh, his 
 Democratic opponent. The vote stood ninety-five to thirty-four, 
 with two votes scattered — the vote was almost the same as had 
 been the vote on the senatorial election in January. 22 
 
 Before the thirty-sixth Congress came together for its second 
 session, the country had passed through one of the most ex- 
 citing presidential contests in its history. Republicans, though 
 victorious, had gained only forty per cent of the popular vote, 
 and less than two per cent of that came from the South. Long 
 before the election threats of secession, in the event of Repub- 
 lican success, had been made. Congress assembled one month 
 after this presidential election and two weeks later delegates of 
 South Carolina met in convention. This last session of Congress 
 under Buchanan faced one of the great crises in the nation's 
 history, a crisis in which sincere but ineffectual efforts were 
 made to prevent the disruption of the Union. 
 
 The President's message on the state of the Union 23 hardly 
 made the task of Congress easier. It contained strong unionism 
 but it also accepted secession; and, while declaring it to be un- 
 constitutional, offered very little resistance to the idea. It lacked 
 the forcefulness of a Jackson message in a time of such national 
 crisis. It was the misfortune of President Buchanan to be called 
 upon to act in an emergency which demanded will-power, 
 fortitude, and moral courage. One can, of course, only speculate 
 on what might have been the result had he acted differently. 
 
 One of the problems of the last Congress had been the appli- 
 cation of Kansas for admission to the Union. No satisfactory 
 
228 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 solution had been found. In the meantime Kansas had formu- 
 lated a new constitution and was again seeking admission. Reed- 
 er, a former Governor of Kansas Territory and a strong op- 
 ponent of the administration's efforts to force the Lecompton 
 Constitution upon Kansas, continued his opposition to the Ad- 
 ministration. While the new bill to admit Kansas was before 
 Congress for consideration he wrote to Cameron from Harris- 
 burg that "Our friends here all say prevent the passage of the 
 Kansas admission by all means during Buchanan's administra- 
 tion." He argued that the party could not afford to give Bu- 
 chanan the patronage which this would lose to the Republicans 
 and that Kansas could not afford to have a judge for life of the 
 Taney stamp. He urged: "This is important. Do not neglect 
 it." 24 Both Cameron and Bigler, however, felt that the inter- 
 est of the country and of Kansas were superior to such party 
 considerations and voted for the bill which passed the Senate 
 on January twenty-first by a vote of thirty-six to sixteen. This 
 was after some Senators had already withdrawn with their 
 states. All of the negative votes came from slave-holding states, 
 though two Senators from slave-holding states, John J. Critten- 
 den of Kentucky and Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, voted for 
 the bill. 25 
 
 Crittenden, on December eighteenth, introduced into the 
 Senate a plan of compromise between the North and the South. 26 
 The heart of the proposal was the first article, which provided 
 that: north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, the line 
 of the old Missouri Compromise, in all territory then held or 
 thereafter acquired, slavery was to be prohibited; south of that 
 line slaves were to be protected as property and not interfered 
 with by Congress. This proposal was the pivot around which, 
 in this session of Congress, revolved discussions concerning sav- 
 ing the Union by compromise. 
 
 Cameron strongly opposed secession but believed that the 
 Crittenden proposals, if amended so as not to extend to territory 
 hereafter acquired and to remove from them the features which 
 proposed to incorporate the doctrine of the Dred Scott decision, 
 might be a satisfactory basis for compromise on both sides. In 
 other words, he was willing that the Missouri Compromise line 
 be restored and extended. The repeal of that measure had led 
 
i860 ELECTIONS, SHORT SESSION, CABINET 229 
 
 to the organization of the Republican Party. By that issue it had 
 gained its strength and secured its victory. "If now," declared 
 he, "our Union loving brethren of the slave border States shall 
 be willing to unite with us in its restoration, and accept that as 
 the basis of settlement of existing difficulties, why should we 
 hesitate thus to meet them?" He declared that there were many 
 fine and strong Union-loving men in the South. He was willing 
 to make any reasonable concession, not involving a vital prin- 
 ciple, to save the country. He invoked a mutual spirit of union 
 and conciliation. 27 
 
 On January twenty-first Senator Bigler, a Democrat elected 
 in 1856, made a rather long speech proposing an amendment to 
 the Crittenden compromise resolutions. He used the occasion to 
 give a survey of the difficulties between northern and southern 
 sections of the country, declaring that "the fundamental cause 
 of the imperiled condition of the country is the institution of 
 African servitude, or rather the unnecessary hostility to that 
 institution on the part of those who have no connection with it." 
 He acknowledged the justice of the complaints of the southern 
 states to a considerable extent, but deprecated the remedy they 
 pursued. He said he was prepared to resist it by all proper and 
 peaceful means in his power. Secession, in his opinion, was the 
 worst possible remedy for the evils complained of by the south- 
 ern states, and coercion the maddest of all remedies suggested for 
 secession. He pled for the adoption of the resolutions of Crit- 
 tenden, by the vote of all parties in Congress, as an assurance of 
 reunion and continued union. 28 
 
 Cameron gained the floor a few minutes after Bigler had 
 completed his appeal. He agreed heartily with the sentiments 
 expressed by his colleague. In the brief discussion which follow- 
 ed, his ideas on the matter under consideration were rather 
 clearly set forth. 29 He was chagrined that out of the whole 
 Senate of sixty-six members, there were not a dozen men at any 
 one time listening to the speech made by Bigler, the representa- 
 tive of one of the greatest states in the Union, as he offered the 
 olive branch of peace. Certainly after seeing that demonstra- 
 tion he would not make a speech. He desired to say that the 
 great state of Pennsylvania — certainly a large majority of its 
 people — would do anything consistent with honor to save the 
 
2 3 o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Union. Daily he received innumerable letters and petitions 
 signed by thousands asking him to do something. He here an- 
 nounced that anything he could do by his vote as a Senator 
 he would do, to prevent the separation of the South from the 
 North, or the North from the South. Senator Willard Saulsbury 
 of Delaware, a Democratic member, thought that the words that 
 had just fallen from the lips of Senator Cameron should be 
 cherished, rather than met with opposition, and declared: "I 
 think he has manifested a spirit of patriotism and devotion to his 
 country and to the Union of these States that we all may well 
 imitate." To this sentiment Crittenden agreed. Coercion, Cam- 
 eron declared, was a bad remedy, the last remedy to which he 
 would resort, and he didn't know that he should ever resort to it. 
 Senator James M. Mason of Virginia entered the discussion 
 with an effort to show that the North talked one way and acted 
 another. Cameron declared that the only difference between 
 himself and the distinguished Senator from Virginia was that 
 the latter seemed to seek some excuse to get out of the Union 
 while he desired to preserve it by any sacrifice of feeling. Ma- 
 son retorted that what he wanted was not an excuse for leaving 
 the Union but a reason for remaining in it. There was only one 
 thing left for the South — dissolution of the Union — and he 
 proceeded to tell what the results would be. Cameron deplored 
 Mason's charging of the North with treason and a desire for 
 bloodshed and war. He declared, perhaps too optimistically: 
 "We will give up not only our prejudices, but our feelings; 
 and, as I said before, even a portion of our principles on this 
 subject of slavery, to gratify the South." He believed the wrongs 
 done to the South were largely imaginary, and invited the 
 Southerners to bring forth any scheme or formula upon which 
 they would call this question settled. The North would come 
 in and sustain it. He wanted to placate the South: 
 
 Tell us what you want; tell us what your wrongs are; and then ask 
 us to redress them. You cannot drive us to madness by bullying us; be- 
 cause we are your equals. We do not undertake coercion, nor war, be- 
 cause we believe you are as brave as we are; but if you want this Union 
 preserved, let us know wherein we have done wrong, and we will try 
 to correct it. 
 
i860 ELECTIONS, SHORT SESSION, CABINET 231 
 
 Senator Saulsbury again approved Cameron's remarks, de- 
 claring that if the Senators of both sides of the chamber would 
 imitate the very laudable spirit manifested by the Senator from 
 Pennsylvania certainly the government would suffer no detri- 
 ment. On the contrary, he believed that great good might result 
 "to our common country." He looked upon it as an omen of 
 good. 30 
 
 All through the opening weeks of this exciting short session 
 or Congress, Cameron had been receiving letters praising his 
 policies as Senator. An occasional letter came even from a 
 member of the opposing party, as that from Benjamin Champ- 
 ness, who wrote that he believed there was a general feeling of 
 confidence in the ranks of the Democratic Party in Cameron's 
 ability and fidelity to the Constitution, and devotion to the in- 
 terests of the Union "and to our own state." 31 
 
 No action of Cameron in the Senate prior to the Civil War 
 stirred people so deeply and brought forth so much comment as 
 his stand for conciliation taken on the Crittenden proposals. In 
 Pennsylvania, outside of abolitionist circles, the comment was 
 almost entirely favorable. 32 J. H. Benjamin and others telegraph- 
 ed from Harrisburg: "People here all delighted with the noble 
 stand you have taken in the Senate in favor of a settlement of 
 our national difficulties." 33 Similar sentiments were expressed as 
 coming from people "of every political stripe" in a letter from 
 General D. K. Jackson. 34 William M. Piatt wrote from Tuck- 
 hannock: "Your course is highly applauded by all the Union 
 and true men in this section. . . . We want more such men." 35 
 From Pittsburgh, George Washington Cass, an engineer and 
 railroad executive, wrote, "I wish to God you were the Presi- 
 dent elect instead of Lincoln. Your course yesterday in the 
 Senate shows you to be a patriot, more than a politician." 36 
 Samuel Colver, who had spent two months travelling in south- 
 western Pennsylvania and western Virginia, reported that Cam- 
 eron's course had received great applause in these areas, especial- 
 ly in the latter. The people of western Virginia believed that 
 war would inevitably follow secession and thought their chances 
 better in the Union than out of it. 37 
 
 Equally complimentary sentiments were expressed to Camer- 
 on by people outside Pennsylvania, from both northern and 
 
23 2 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 southern states. Saterlee Clark wrote from Wisconsin: "I op- 
 posed the election of Lincoln, . . but if he will adopt the course 
 you have marked out for yourself he will be entitled to the 
 support of every loyal citizen of the country." 38 Richard Mc- 
 Crea of Richmond, Virginia, declared: "As a lover of the 
 Union I was rejoiced at the amicable and conciliatory temper 
 of your late observations in the Senate." He sent a fifteen-page 
 letter, on foolscap, offering a plan of saving the Union, for 
 Cameron's consideration. 39 John D. Kellogg of New York, de- 
 scribed a great "Union Democratic Convention" at Albany 
 where many Republicans were seated with the welcome of the 
 Democrats. The absorbing objective was to save the Union. 
 The convention unanimously passed a resolution "thanking you 
 for your patriotic effort in the Senate in behalf of an honorable 
 adjustment of the present difficulties." The writer invited at- 
 tention to this as "the highest mark of confidence and respect 
 which the people here could pay to your well merited efforts." 40 
 Other letters of similar tenor were received from Tennessee and 
 Missouri. 
 
 Cameron's stand on the matter of compromise in 1861 was 
 unique, as he was a Republican. George Fort Milton argues 
 that the"Needless War" came because there were too few lead- 
 ers, both Northern and Southern, who saw the wisdom of fol- 
 lowing Douglas and Crittenden. 41 Cameron, by his stand in the 
 Senate in January of 1861, qualified as one of the type needed 
 on the "Eve of Conflict" to prevent the war. 
 
 In contrast to the above expressions favorable to compromise 
 there were also some in Pennsylvania who urged upon Cam- 
 eron "no compromise" and strong adherence to the Chicago 
 platform. 42 Some wanted a strong policy of the government 
 against "unjust" criticism, domination, and bullying by the 
 minority of the lower South. Others felt that the loss of the 
 South would be no calamity for the North, but that the North 
 should endeavor by concessions to hold Kentucky, Virginia 
 and Maryland in the Union. 43 Reeder reported that the fighting 
 sentiment in the region of Allentown was mounting, with special 
 antagonism directed against the city of Charleston. 44 This was a 
 local reaction to the firing on the Star of the West two days 
 earlier in the Charleston harbor, when she was carrying re- 
 
i860 ELECTIONS, SHORT SESSION, CABINET 233 
 
 enforcements to Fort Sumter. With the spread of ill rumors, 
 D. J. Hoober of Philadelphia urged Cameron to call a caucus 
 of the Republicans in Congress and demand that measures be 
 taken to protect the Capital against the Southern traitors. 45 
 Brigadier-General William F. Small of the Washington Guards, 
 Philadelphia, tendered the services of a brigade of volunteer in- 
 fantry, suggesting that "in the present unhappy and precarious 
 condition of public affairs, they could be employed to garrison 
 arsenals, naval stations, and forts and thus relieve the regular 
 troops and place them at the disposal of the President for duty 
 elsewhere." 46 
 
 An incident, which helps to reveal a warm feeling on the part 
 of Senator Cameron for the South and some of her leaders, oc- 
 curred on January twenty-first. The state of Mississippi seceded 
 from the Union on the ninth of January, but her Senators lin- 
 gered in Washington until the twenty-first before withdrawing 
 from the Senate. On that day Jefferson Davis took leave in a 
 speech of remarkable gravity and brevity. The speech contained 
 a brief historical vindication of the South, and then concluded 
 with an appropriate and dignified inspiration in an appeal to 
 Providence for peaceful relations between North and South. In 
 the closing remarks of his speech he showed an unbounded 
 generosity, begging pardon of all whom he had ever offended, 
 and, directing his attention to the Senators from the North, 
 declared that he carried away no hostile feelings, and sincerely 
 apologized for whatever personal displeasure had ever been oc- 
 casioned in debate. 47 
 
 It was a solemn occasion, this breaking of old ties under such 
 circumstances. It is quite strange that, after such a noble ex- 
 pression of personal friendliness on the part of Davis, only two 
 Republican Senators approached him and bade him farewell. 
 They were John P. Hale of New Hampshire and Simon Cam- 
 eron of Pennsylvania. 48 After brief conversation befitting the 
 serious occasion and the possibility of war between North and 
 South, Davis in a spirit of levity turned to Cameron with the 
 remark: "Cameron, I am going to make my headquarters in 
 your house on the Susquehanna." To this Cameron replied, in 
 the same vein: "Not before I plant corn in the public square in 
 Savannah." 49 
 
234 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 A rising tide of indignation against the Buchanan administra- 
 tion became quite apparent during the two months following 
 the i860 elections. This was noted in such leading newspapers 
 as the New York Times and the Chicago Press and Tribune. It 
 was also observed in the letters to Cameron, some of which are 
 cited above, and in the correspondence of Horace White of 
 Chicago with Lyman Trumbull 50 of the Senate and Elihu B. 
 Washburne 51 of the House of Representatives. Demands were 
 being made for the impeachment of Buchanan and of his secre- 
 tary of war, John B. Floyd of Virginia. The resignation of 
 Floyd and transfer of Joseph Holt to the War Department oc- 
 curred at the end of January. This with other changes in the 
 Cabinet brought a stiffening of administrative policy and a 
 softening of feeling towards the President. It should be remem- 
 bered that his final Annual Message had firm unionism in it, 
 though it contained no indication that he had any plan to move 
 against secession if it came. Buchanan did not commit the gov- 
 ernment to a recognition of secession, and he was able to hold 
 eight of the fifteen slave states in the Union until the end of his 
 administration. 52 After this the new administration might try 
 its skill at solving the most difficult problem to confront the 
 nation since its inception three-quarters of a century earlier. 
 
 Very little was said, or known, of any bargain between Lin- 
 coln's managers and the Cameron men, concerning a Cabinet 
 position, until some weeks after the election. The Chicago cor- 
 respondent of the Philadelphia Press wrote, the day after the 
 convention, of a rumor that the vote of Pennsylvania was count- 
 ed upon because of the conciliation of Cameron by the assur- 
 ance that he would be made secretary of the treasury. 53 Friends 
 wrote to Cameron from various parts of the country expressing 
 hope that he would have a prominent place in Lincoln's ad- 
 ministration or declaring that his course in the convention en- 
 titled him to any position for himself or his friends that he 
 might ask in the event of success at the polls. 54 Cameron in 
 conference with Wilmot, in Harrisburg, expressed his resolution 
 not to exchange his senatorship for a subordinate place in the Ad- 
 ministration. Wilmot later wrote to him urging that he should 
 reconsider this expressed determination. He felt that Lincoln, 
 "in justice to himself, to you, and to the men who nominated 
 
i860 ELECTIONS, SHORT SESSION, CABINET 235 
 
 him, ought to tender you the Secretaryship of the Treasury." 
 Wilmot hoped he would accept it, and thought he should at 
 least have the opportunity to decline, even if his determination 
 were fixed. 55 McClure declares that Lincoln had no knowledge 
 of the Davis agreement with the Cameron men until after the 
 election when he came to make up his Cabinet, and had not 
 been advised of it even at the time when he asked Cameron to 
 come to Springfield and gave him a written tender of a position 
 either as secretary of the treasury or as secretary of war. 56 On 
 November twenty-seventh Lincoln wrote to Hamlin: "I deem 
 it proper to advise you that I also find letters here from very 
 strong and unexpected quarters in Pennsylvania, urging the ap- 
 pointment of General Cameron to a place in the Cabinet." 57 
 
 At Cameron's suggestion, B. Rush Petrikin, early in December, 
 visited Wilmot, who wanted to become United States Senator, 
 and worked out with him an agreement for mutual aid to ob- 
 tain the office of Secretary of War for Cameron and the senator- 
 ship for Wilmot, the patronage to be divided. Petrikin declared 
 that Wilmot was "less mercenary and more reliable than any- 
 one of our numerous host." 58 Cameron apparently did not de- 
 sire such a definite agreement with Wilmot as was presented 
 to him by Petrikin, but expressed a desire to do whatever he 
 could for Wilmot, for whom he had high regard. There was no 
 one he would rather see in the Senate but he could not make 
 himself a party to such an agreement. "It would ruin his [Wil- 
 mot's] chances and disgrace me." Cameron said that nearly all 
 the candidates had offered him the same terms, including Mc- 
 Clure. To all he had given but one reply, that he could not 
 interfere, except that in his reply to McClure he had sent a 
 harsher message. McClure was accused of intriguing with all the 
 candidates. Cameron declared that he would make no bargains 
 about any place for himself. 59 From this letter, and from another 
 received from Edgar Cowan a few days later, it appears that 
 Cameron was not particularly anxious at that time to go into 
 the Cabinet and was not encouraging his friends to put forth 
 efforts for him. 60 However, letters written by both Lincoln and 
 Hamlin indicate that Cameron was being pressed upon the 
 President-elect for a place in the Cabinet. 61 
 
 On December twenty-sixth Leonard Swett telegraphed to 
 
236 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 "Simon Cameron or Joseph Casey": "It is important I should 
 see Cameron immediately." Apparently unable to go to Har- 
 risburg as he had intended doing, he again telegraphed that he 
 was sending a letter. 62 In his letter which arrived a few days 
 later, Swett said that he had held an interview with Lincoln in 
 Springfield, the previous week, when Lincoln had requested him 
 to invite Cameron to visit him as soon as he could conveniently 
 do so. 63 
 
 Cameron departed for Illinois almost immediately. Arriving 
 at Springfield on December thirtieth, he was in conference with 
 Lincoln much of that day and the next. 64 When he took his 
 departure on the thirty-first Lincoln handed him the following 
 letter: 
 
 I think fit to notify you now, that by your permission, I shall, at the 
 proper time nominate you to the U. S. Senate, for confirmation as Sec- 
 retary of the Treasury, or as Secretary of War — which of the two, I 
 have not yet definitely decided. Please answer at your earliest con- 
 venience. 65 
 
 The Philadelphia Press on January second, carried notice of 
 a dispatch from Springfield from "reliable authority," saying 
 that General Cameron would have a seat in Lincoln's Cabi- 
 net. The writer commented that this selection was a step in the 
 right direction to safeguard the tariff interests of Pennsylvania. 66 
 There was no indication in Lincoln's letter to Cameron of a de- 
 sire on his part that the offer should be kept secret, and Cameron 
 on his return to Pennsylvania gave out news of the offer. 
 
 There was a volcanic eruption in Pennsylvania and in some 
 other states, a vehement protest from the anti-Cameron men. 
 The bitter hostility found expression through the Curtin fac- 
 tion, which was almost as potent as the Cameron followers. As 
 the emissary of the Curtin group, Colonel McClure hastened to 
 Springfield to register a protest against the appointment. 67 The 
 protest must have been of a strong character for on January 
 third Lincoln addressed another letter to Cameron marked 
 "Private" declaring rather abruptly: 
 
 Since seeing you things have developed which make it impossible for 
 me to take you into the Cabinet. You will say this comes from an inter- 
 view with McClure; and this is partly, but not wholly, true. The more 
 
i860 ELECTIONS, SHORT SESSION, CABINET 237 
 
 potent matter is wholly outside Pennsylvania; and yet I am not at liberty 
 to specify it. Enough that it appears to me to be sufficient. And now I 
 suggest that you write me declining the appointment, in which case I 
 do not object to its being known that it was tendered you. Better do 
 this at once, before things so change that you cannot honorably de- 
 cline, and I be compelled to openly recall the tender. No person living 
 knows or has an intimation that I write this letter. Yours truly, A. Lin- 
 coln. P.S. Telegraph me instantly on receipt of this saying "All right." 
 
 A. L.68 
 
 By the time this letter reached Cameron, McClure had re- 
 turned to Pennsylvania and had given out a statement in which 
 he asserted positively that no Cabinet appointment for Pennsyl- 
 vania had been absolutely determined upon. 69 The matter was 
 put in such a way as to cast doubt upon earlier statements that 
 Cameron had received an offer. Cameron's friends rallied to his 
 support with declarations that they had seen the promise of the 
 appointment over Lincoln's signature. 70 
 
 Instead of sending the expected telegram, Cameron preferred 
 to face the possible alternative of having Lincoln openly with- 
 draw the offer. Lincoln was greatly embarrassed by the situa- 
 tion. Evidently the offer had been made somewhat prematurely, 
 and Lincoln hoped to save embarrassment on both sides by the 
 earliest and easiest possible rectification of his mistake. The sit- 
 uation appeared rather dark for Cameron, but he was never one 
 to back down from a political contest or situation because the 
 odds appeared to be strongly against him. It was at such times 
 that his power and influence as a political strategist showed up 
 most clearly. 
 
 The gauge of battle was set and the challenge offered by his 
 political enemies. Whatever his prior feeling with reference to a 
 Cabinet office, he could not permit this challenge of his oppo- 
 nents to remain unanswered nor could he back out by way of 
 declining the proffered Cabinet seat — that would mean their 
 victory and his defeat. He determined to throw all his resources 
 into action. Against the charges that were being brought to 
 Lincoln's attention, there began to pour in upon Springfield 
 floods of telegrams, letters, and petitions — testimonials for Cam- 
 eron that dealt with phases of his life from apprenticeship in the 
 printing trade on through his business and political career. 71 
 
2 38 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 From early in January until mid-February, when Lincoln 
 departed for Washington, Springfield was seldom without visit- 
 ing pro-Cameron emissaries. In the early stages of the contest, 
 after McClure's return from Springfield, Cameron called J. P. 
 Sanderson to Washington for a conference. A few days later 
 Sanderson and Edgar Cowan, Senator-elect of Pennsylvania, 
 arrived in Springfield to press the appointment of Cameron. 72 
 
 After this conference Lincoln again wrote to Cameron, this 
 time in a more cordial and friendly tone: 
 
 At the suggestion of Mr. Sanderson, and with hearty goodwill be- 
 sides, I herewith send you a letter dated January 3 — the same in date as 
 the last you received from me. I thought best to give it that date, as it 
 is in some sort to take the place of that letter. I learn, both by a letter 
 from Mr. Swett and from Mr. Sanderson, that your feelings were 
 wounded by the terms of my letter really of the 3d. I wrote that letter 
 under great anxiety and perhaps I was not so guarded in its terms as I 
 should have been; but I beg you to be assured I intended no offense. 
 My great object was to have you act quickly, if possible before the 
 matter should be complicated with the Pennsylvania senatorial election. 
 Destroy the offensive letter, or return it to me. 
 
 I say to you now I have not doubted that you would perform the 
 duties of a department ably and faithfully. Nor have I for a moment 
 intended to ostracise your friends. If I should make a cabinet appoint- 
 ment for Pennsylvania before I reach Washington, I will not do so with- 
 out consulting you, and giving all the weight to your views and wishes 
 which I consistently can. This I have always intended. 73 
 
 With this explanation Lincoln enclosed a formal letter pre- 
 dated January third, which could be shown or published. It 
 was to serve as a substitute for the letter he had actually written 
 on the earlier date. The enclosure stated: 
 
 When you were here, about the last of December, I handed you a 
 letter saying I should at the proper time nominate you to the Senate for 
 a place in the cabinet. It is due to you and to truth for me to say you 
 were here by my invitation, and not upon any suggestion of your own. 
 You have not as yet signified to me whether you would accept the ap- 
 pointment, and with much pain I now say to you that you will relieve 
 me from great embarrassment by allowing me to recall the offer. This 
 springs from an unexpected complication, and not from any change of 
 my view as to the ability or faithfulness with which you would dis- 
 charge the duties of the place. I now think I will not definitely fix upon 
 any appointment for Pennsylvania until I reach Washington. 74 
 
i860 ELECTIONS, SHORT SESSION, CABINET 239 
 
 Much of Pennsylvania opinion that was favorable to the se- 
 lection of Cameron pressed for his appointment to the Treasury 
 Department and revealed a strong desire for a protective tariff 
 policy. Pennsylvanians wanted a change in the tariff policy of 
 the government and the feeling was prevalent that Cameron as 
 secretary of the treasury would strengthen the protectionists 
 against the "free-traders." Also, he was regarded as a conserva- 
 tive and a conciliator, therefore, a good man to be numbered 
 among the President's advisors in this time of rising crisis. 75 
 
 This contest made good news-copy and the press took full 
 advantage of the opportunity to air the claims and counter- 
 claims on both sides. The Philadelphia Inquirer, one of the less 
 partisan newspapers, expressed a feeling that the working and 
 development of Pennsylvania's vast deposits of mineral wealth 
 would depend upon the degree of friendliness of government 
 policy. That policy might be largely guided and directed 
 through the Treasury Department in its revenue course. It was 
 known that the financial views of Cameron were in line with 
 the best interests of the state, and therefore the Inquirer lent its 
 support to his appointment. 76 
 
 The Pennsylvania Telegraph devoted a column to the edi- 
 torial reaction throughout the state. Among those editors favor- 
 ing Cameron were several representatives of the Democratic 
 press who, like the editor of the Sunbury American, declared: 
 "The appointment of General Cameron to the office of Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury, is one of the greatest importance to Penn- 
 sylvania. In financial ability the General is acknowledged to be 
 one of the ablest men in the State." Two other Democratic 
 papers, the Columbia County Democrat and the Philadelphia 
 Record came out unequivocally for General Cameron for the 
 Treasury Department. 78 The New York Tribune made com- 
 paratively few comments on Cabinet possibilities, but the ru- 
 mors of Cameron's selection for either the Treasury or War 
 Department elicited poorly disguised disapproval. 79 
 
 The charges made against Cameron were vague and very 
 general, rather than specific in nature. James H. Van Alen sent 
 Lincoln "extracts" from congressional documents in relation to 
 Cameron's action as commissioner to settle the Claims of the 
 Winnebago Indians. 80 Gustave Koerner declared to Lincoln on 
 
2 4 o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 January sixth that "Cameron cannot be trusted; he has the repu- 
 tation of being a tricky and corrupt politician." 81 McClure in 
 an account of his visit to Springfield and interview with Lin- 
 coln wrote: 
 
 I took no affidavits with me, nor were any specific charges made against 
 him [Cameron] by me, or by any of the letters I bore; but they all 
 sustained me in the allegation, that the appointment would disgrace 
 the administration and the country, because of the notorious incom- 
 petency and public and private villany of the candidate. 82 
 
 Lyman Trumbull wrote on January third and tenth, opposing 
 the appointment, asserting that Cameron "is very generally re- 
 garded as a trading, unscrupulous politician. . . . totally unfit 
 for the Treasury Department." 83 At the end of his answer to 
 Trumbull's first letter Lincoln said: "I may mention before 
 closing that besides the very fixed opposition to General C 
 [ameron] he is more amply recommended for a place in the 
 Cabinet than any other man." 84 
 
 Lincoln was in an awkward predicament, which he had en- 
 hanced by his own course. He wanted to be fair to those who 
 were making charges against Cameron, but he felt that Cameron 
 should have an opportunity to vindicate himself. 85 He wanted 
 the support of the Keystone State in the national emergency, 
 and Cameron was its leading link in business and politics. The 
 charges against him reflected seriously upon his personal and 
 political character, but when Lincoln endeavored to sift them, 
 he could find nothing but hearsay and defensive excuses that 
 referred to one matter or another that had been discussed at 
 some time in anonymous newspaper articles. 86 
 
 Lincoln asked for documentary evidence of the correctness 
 of the charges made against Cameron. He wrote to McClure, 
 after his flying visit to Springfield to denounce Cameron, stat- 
 ing that if he would make specific charges against Cameron 
 and produce proof, he (Lincoln) would dismiss consideration 
 of Cameron for a Cabinet position. McClure replied, declining 
 to do so. 87 The enemies of the Senator, in general, refused to 
 prefer charges against him in writing and submit proof. Lincoln 
 declared on several occasions in February, 1861, that if Pennsyl- 
 vania were to be represented in the Cabinet it would be by 
 
i860 ELECTIONS, SHORT SESSION, CABINET 241 
 
 Cameron, and no one else. 88 He determined, in the face of the 
 circumstances, to withhold announcement of Cabinet appoint- 
 ments until after he arrived in Washington. Pennsylvania was 
 convulsed by the struggle for and against Cameron for about 
 two months. 
 
 David Davis wrote to Cameron from Bloomington, Illinois, 
 on February eighth: "I have faith that everything will be right. 
 Am in good spirits on that point. . . . Keep the spirits of your 
 friends up. Don't relax effort until the end"* 9 Davis accom- 
 panied the Lincoln party on the rather circuitous journey to 
 Washington. It had been arranged that Lincoln should make 
 several stops and address various groups along the way. After the 
 presidential entourage had visited Pittsburgh, John N. Purviance 
 wrote to Cameron: "Your friends are much encouraged with 
 the prospects that you will go into the Cabinet. Judge Davis of 
 Illinois talks plainly and encouragingly." 90 
 
 James Milliken, an ironmaster of Philadelphia, and other 
 friends of Cameron were working on Governor Curtin and 
 McClure in an effort to obtain withdrawal of their opposition 
 to Cameron's appointment. They wanted to arrange for an in- 
 terview with Lincoln, when he should be in Philadelphia, at 
 which time the announcement of withdrawal of opposition 
 could be made and it was hoped Lincoln would then confirm 
 Cameron's appointment. 91 Things worked out very much as 
 Milliken had planned. Lincoln arrived in Philadelphia on Thurs- 
 day, February twenty-first. The interview was arranged. Milli- 
 ken explained to Lincoln that he was authorized to speak for 
 Governor Curtin, McClure, and the members of the state admin- 
 istration, and say that all opposition to Cameron's appointment 
 had been withdrawn and that his appointment was even de- 
 sired; that he (Milliken) represented the iron and coal men of 
 Pennsylvania, with very few exceptions, and they desired Cam- 
 eron's appointment. Martin McMichael was there to speak for 
 the press. Lincoln spoke frankly and declared that the announce- 
 ment relieved him greatly. He was not, however, prepared to 
 decide the matter until he should reach Washington. 92 
 
 The New York Times carried an item under Washington 
 date-line, February twenty-fifth, which stated: 
 
242 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Probably in the history of political contest, no fight more bitter than 
 that waged by the friends and enemies of Mr. Cameron is recorded. The 
 result is that, finding opposition futile, the opponents of the appointee 
 formally withdrew their charges, and today it is a settled point that 
 Pennsylvania is to be represented in the Cabinet by Mr. Cameron. 93 
 
 The writer went on to say that the fight would still be waged 
 as to the position he would occupy. His friends demanded for 
 him the Treasury Department, while his enemies said the only 
 place he should even dare to accept was the War Department. 
 Cameron preferred the former but here encountered such vio- 
 lent demonstrations by the friends of Chase as would have made 
 a less determined person shrink. 
 
 In Washington the President-elect invited Cameron for con- 
 ference on the evening of February twenty-eighth, and another 
 interview was arranged for the morning of March first. The 
 matter of appointment to the Cabinet was thoroughly discussed. 
 Cameron was reluctant to accept any department other than the 
 treasury. However, Congress had recently passed a tariff bill 
 making tariff modifications favorable to Pennsylvania, 94 and it 
 was no longer felt to be so urgent that a Pennsylvanian should 
 occupy the treasury post. The outcome of these conferences 
 was that Cameron upon Lincoln's urgent request agreed to ac- 
 cept appointment as secretary of war. 95 
 
 Whatever may have been the influences for and against him, 
 whatever there may have been of truth or fallacy in the oppro- 
 brium heaped upon him, President Lincoln on March fifth 
 nominated Simon Cameron to be secretary of war and the Senate 
 promptly confirmed the nomination. Secretary Joseph Holt re- 
 mained in the War Office during the remainder of the week 
 while Cameron made a brief visit to Pennsylvania to clear up 
 personal affairs. On Monday, March eleventh, he qualified for 
 his place and took the oath of office as secretary of war. 96 
 
 The view is not acceptable that Cameron's appointment was 
 altogether the result of a bargain made in Chicago between Lin- 
 coln's managers and the Cameron delegates. At any rate, Lin- 
 coln certainly would not have made the appointment if the 
 charges made against Cameron had been proven. He acted with 
 entire sincerity, though clumsily, in this contest over the ap- 
 pointment, while at the same time being influenced by the de- 
 
i860 ELECTIONS, SHORT SESSION, CABINET 243 
 
 sire to reconcile party differences. Had there been no bargain 
 in Chicago the appointment of Cameron was in line with Lin- 
 coln's policy of placating the disappointed candidates. 
 
 The appointment, when made, met with general approval 
 except among Cameron's most determined opponents. Penn- 
 sylvania opposition had been withdrawn before his appointment. 
 The Weed-Seward forces in New York had supported Camer- 
 on. R. B. Spink of Wooster, Ohio, wrote a few days after the 
 appointment that there was but one paper in the whole of Ohio 
 so far as he could ascertain that showed the least disposition to- 
 wards opposing him. He referred to the Cincinnati Commercial, 
 which he characterized as "not a very good Republican sheet, 
 rather inclined to be factious." 97 
 
 Senator Cameron took to the war department a rich back- 
 ground of private and public experience. During the preceding 
 years he had demonstrated his business acumen, organizing 
 ability, and administrative capacity. A. H. Meneely, writing of 
 Cameron in The War Department, 1861, says of him: 
 
 He was energetic, persevering and had proven himself a shrewd ma- 
 nipulator of men. None understood better the value of patronage wisely 
 distributed and none was a greater master at the game. Lincoln needed 
 the public support as no President before him ever did; patronage was 
 one means of procuring and holding it and Cameron was a handy ac- 
 complice for such work. His eminently common-sense, practical ways 
 doubtless were often relied upon in political matters during his brief 
 incumbency of the War Department and as the war progressed. It 
 was to Cameron that Lincoln turned when the political situation was 
 critical in 1864, and a fair share of the credit for Lincoln's victory be- 
 longs to the man from Donegal Springs. 98 
 
 Cameron resigned the office of secretary of war in January, 
 1862, and went to Europe as United States Minister to Russia. 
 He was not pleased with this office and consequently returned 
 to the United States within the year. From 1863 to 1867, when 
 he was re-elected to the Senate, he took an active part in the 
 politics of Pennsylvania, working to perfect the organization of 
 the Republican Party, thus aiding it soon to overcome all op- 
 position. In the meantime, he was a frequent visitor in Washing- 
 ton and was accepted at the White House as a sort of citizen- 
 counselor. When intrigues developed among the Cabinet mem- 
 
244 
 
 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 bers looking towards the displacement of Lincoln at the next 
 election, Cameron directed the preparation of an address prais- 
 ing the President's first administration and declaring that his 
 renomination and re-election were essential to the success of the 
 war for the Union. This paper was signed by the Union Party 
 members of both branches of the legislature of Pennsylvania. 
 In this form it was presented to President Lincoln and tele- 
 graphed to the country at large. Its publication accomplished all 
 that Cameron had anticipated. Within a few weeks the Union 
 Party in most of the other states hastened to declare for Lincoln's 
 renomination. When the national convention of the Union 
 Party assembled in June, Lincoln received the votes of every 
 state except Missouri. Its votes were cast, in accordance with 
 instructions, for General U. S. Grant. The nomination was then 
 made unanimous. In the elections that fall the Union Party won 
 an overwhelming victory over the Democrats led by George 
 B. McClellan." 
 
NOTES 
 
NOTES 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 1 Alexander Kelley McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania (Phil- 
 adelphia, 1905), I, 98. 
 
 2 Lincoln to Cameron, Washington, January 1 1, 1862, John G. Nicolay 
 and John Hay, Abraham Lincoln — Complete Works (New York, 1894), 
 
 H, 114* 
 
 3 McClure, op. cit., I, 436. 
 
 4 E. T. Welles, ed., Diary of Gideon Welles (New York, 191 1), III, 
 479, December 9, 1868. 
 
 5 Thaddeus Stevens and Samuel Kaufman, quoted in J. A. Woodburn, 
 Life of Thaddeus Stevens (Indianapolis, 191 3), 600. 
 
 6 Alexander MacKenzie, History of the Carrier ons (Inverness, 1884), 
 250. 
 
 7 William H. Egle, ed., Provincial Papers: Proprietary and State Tax 
 Lists of Lancaster County (1782), Pennsylvania Archives, Third Series 
 (Harrisburg, 1897), XVII, 857. 
 
 8 General Cameron stopped in London for several days while on his 
 way to Russia in 1862. At that time John Bigelow, Consul-general at 
 Paris, wrote to Secretary William H. Seward (from Paris, May 29, 1862) 
 that Cameron was "searching for proofs of his descent from Lochiel 
 and with considerable success. I saw a note from McDonald of the 
 Times, who has written a book about the clans of Scotland and who 
 states, after a brief interview, that the family likeness is obvious." Be- 
 fore the task was completed, however, Cameron abandoned London 
 and his genealogical researches and continued on his journey. John 
 Bigelow, Retrospections of An Active Life (New York, 1909), I, 493. 
 
 9 The original copy of this indenture is in the Simon Cameron Papers, 
 Library of Congress. Simon's term of indenture was to be three years 
 and ten months, for which he was to receive his keep and $20 per year 
 for clothing. The Simon Cameron Papers will hereafter be cited as 
 Cameron Papers, and, except when otherwise indicated, will refer to 
 the collection in the Library of Congress. 
 
 10 Biographical data gathered from: Charles Hale and William A. 
 Wheeler, A Brief Biographical Dictionary (New York, 1866); Luther 
 Reily Kelker, History of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania (New York, 
 1907), III, 1-5; Franklin Ellis and Samuel Evans, History of Lancaster 
 County, Pennsylvania (1883); A. Howard Meneely, "Simon Cameron," 
 Dictionary of American Biography; Hiram H. Shenk, ed., Encyclopedia 
 of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg, 1932), 84; Edward B. Moore, Glances at 
 the Life and Public Services of Gen. Simon Cameron (Harrisburg, n.d.); 
 
248 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 A. Howard Meneely, The War Department, 1861 (New York, 1928), 
 74-84; Simon Cameron Papers, miscellaneous material now in the hands 
 of sundry members of the Cameron family; Benson J. Lossing, "An 
 Autograph of Simon Cameron," [n.d.], original bound manuscript now 
 in the possession of James M. Cameron, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; per- 
 sonal correspondence with Col. Henry W. Shoemaker, State Archivist, 
 Pennsylvania State Library, Harrisburg. Ralph Beaver Strassburger and 
 William John Hinke, Pennsylvania German Pioneers, 9-10. In this lat- 
 ter work Hans Michel Pfautz's signature appears on a facsimile of the 
 passenger list of the ship William and Sarah, William Hill, Commander, 
 from Rotterdam, signed in the presence of the Governor and Council 
 on September 21, 1727. 
 
 11 W. W. H. Davis, History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania (Doyles- 
 town, 1876), 816-817. 
 
 12 See issues of the Pennsylvania Intelligencer, January 26 to February 
 27, 1821. 
 
 13 Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln: The War Years (New York, 
 1939), I, 148. 
 
 ^Pennsylvania Intelligencer, May 31, 1822. 
 
 15 Items appear in the Pennsylvania Reporter during 1830 over the 
 signature of Cameron as Adjutant General. 
 
 ^Pennsylvania Intelligencer, November 25, December 6, 1825. 
 
 11 Pennsylvania Reporter, November 30, 1827. Despite Cameron's an- 
 nounced consolidation of the Intelligencer with the Reporter, the In- 
 telligencer continued to be published by John S. Wiestling and exhibited 
 even greater hostility to General Jackson, calling him a "monarchist 
 and despot" and likening him to Caesar in all the evils committed by 
 the Roman militarist. August 26, September 23, 1828. 
 
 18 A silent partner of Stambaugh of the Harrisburg Reporter until 
 March, 1829, Annotated Catalogue of Newspaper Files, Pennsylvania 
 State Library, Harrisburg, 234; and in 1845 so ^ his one-fourth part- 
 nership interest in the Washington Union, letter of Wm. A. Harris (M. 
 C. from Virginia) to John C. Calhoun, July 11, 1845, American His- 
 torical Association, Annual Report, 1899, II, 1042. 
 
 19 Cited by Meneely, 75. 
 20 Kelker, op. cit., 311. 
 
 21 Ibid., 310. 
 
 22 Ibid., 3 1 1-3 1 2. 
 
 23 William H. Egle, ed., Biographical Encyclopedia of Dauphin 
 County, 220; Cameron to L. S. Coryell, Harrisburg, February 12, 1828, 
 Coryell Papers, II, 21, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; files of Pennsylvania Reporter, 
 1828. 
 
 24 Cameron to L. S. Coryell, Harrisburg, February 12, March 1, 1828, 
 Coryell Papers, II, 20, 21. 
 
 25 Pennsylvania Reporter. Advertisement of Mish, Cameron and Com- 
 pany appearing in January, 1829, and continuing for some months, an- 
 
NOTES 249 
 
 nouncing the arrival for sale of canal shovels, etc. Papers of Mish, Cam- 
 eron and Company are among the Cameron Papers. 
 
 26 Joshua Stoddard Johnston Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. This is a col- 
 lection of letters, April 1830-May 1832, written to Johnston by W. W. 
 Hoffman, C. Watts, Thomas Curry, Samuel Livermore, and J. Linton. 
 Joshua Stoddard Johnston was a United States Senator from Louisiana, 
 greatly interested in the internal improvement projects of his native 
 state and a stock-holder in the New Orleans Canal and Banking Com- 
 pany. 
 
 27 Cameron to Governor Shulze, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 
 28, 183 1, Cameron Papers, Society Collection Mss., Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 28 March 17, 1829. 
 '^Pennsylvania Reporter, July 13, 1832. 
 
 30 Ibid., November 8, 1833. 
 
 31 Certificate of deposit in Bank of Middletown by A. Mahon, Esq., 
 State Treasurer, October 31, 1833, Mss. Section, Collection C, Simon 
 Cameron Papers, Archives Division of Pennsylvania State Library. 
 
 32 Buchanan to Hon. Horatio King, Wheatland, July 14, 1866, Bu- 
 chanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 33 The Autograph Collection of Simon Gratz, Hist. Soc. of Pa., con- 
 tains a number of scattered letters of Simon Cameron to Simon, Ed- 
 ward, and David Gratz. They relate to banking and business conditions. 
 The Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa., have a great number of Cam- 
 eron letters, and the Harris Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa., contain a number 
 of letters written by numerous persons to Cameron as well as some 
 Cameron letters to George W. Harris. A great number of the letters in 
 each of the collections deal with banking and business conditions in 
 the late 1830s and early 1840s. 
 
 34 Cameron to Simon Gratz, Harrisburg, February 8, 1838, Auto- 
 graph Collection of Simon Gratz, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 35 Idem to idem, Harrisburg, February 12, 1838, Gratz Collection. 
 
 36 December 28, 1837, Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 37 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, February 4, March 20, August 
 13, 1834, and March 22, 1835, Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Bu- 
 chanan to Cameron, Lancaster, August 16, 1834, Cameron Papers. 
 
 38 Cameron with committee to Nicholas Biddle, President United 
 States Bank, September 21, 1836, Etting Papers, Administrations, IV, 86. 
 A note affixed to this letter reads — "declined — 27." Biddle and Cam- 
 eron had no love for each other, since Cameron had applauded Jack- 
 son's action which led to the destroying of the Second United States 
 Bank. When Biddle was elected president of the Sunbury and Erie 
 Railroad on December 4, 1837, Cameron wrote to Buchanan the next 
 day: "Another monster broken loose." Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of 
 Pa. 
 
 39 Moore, Glances at the Life and Public Services of General Simon 
 Cameron, 9-10. Mr. Cameron related this incident, with but slight varia- 
 tion from the above, at a banquet in his honor at Harrisburg on May 3, 
 
2 5 o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 1862, just a few days before he departed for St. Petersburg, as United 
 States Minister to Russia. Pennsylvania Telegraphy May 5, 1862. 
 
 40 Cameron to C. Howard, Middletown and Harrisburg, March 13, 
 16, 19, 30, December 26, 1836, Autograph Collection, Simon Cameron, 
 Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 41 Cameron to Simon Gratz, Middletown, June 29, 1837, Gratz Col- 
 lection, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 42 Meneely, op. cit., 76; Egle, ed., Biographical Encyclopedia of Dau- 
 phin County, 22i. 
 
 43 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, March 20, 1834, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Cameron to Coryell, Middletown, June 2, 14, 
 1838, Coryell Papers, HI, 68, 70, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 44 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, November 23, 1837, and 
 Prairie du Chien, September 22, 1838, Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 45 Cameron to Simon Gratz, Middletown, December 11, 1835, Gratz 
 Collection, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, May 
 20, 1835, May 18, 1836, December 29, 1836, Buchanan Papers, Hist. 
 Soc. of Pa. 
 
 46 New York Herald, March 4, 1861; New York Times, June 3, 1878, 
 June 27, 1889. 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 1 Marguerite G. Bartlett, The Chief Phases of Pennsylvania Politics in 
 the Jacksonian Period (Allentown, 19 19), Chapter I. 
 
 2 Edward Channing, A History of the United States (New York, 
 1905-1936), V, 371. 
 
 3 March 12, 1824, Cameron at this time editor. 
 
 4 Herman Hailperin, "Pro-Jackson Sentiment in Pennsylvania, 1820- 
 1828," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, L, 200. 
 
 ^Pennsylvania Intelligencer, March 12, 1824. 
 
 6 N iles' Register, Baltimore, XXVI (March 13, 1824), 19-20, presents a 
 good succinct account of this convention; Pennsylvania Intelligencer, 
 March 5, 1824. 
 
 "Edward Stanwood, A History of the Presidency from ij88 to 1891 
 (Boston, 1898), 136, 144. 
 
 8 Harrisburg Chronicle, January 15, 1827. Proposed by a Col. Ryon on 
 January 9. 
 
 9 February 22, October 10, 1828. 
 
 10 August 25, 1828. It is true that the Congress which passed this act 
 had a majority of Jackson adherents in both houses. However, the 
 paper failed to note the fact that the Jackson men of the South were 
 not as interested in tariff as were the Pennsylvanians. 
 
 11 Cameron to Buchanan, Harrisburg, February 4, 1829, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 12 Cameron to Col. Robert Bethel, Harrisburg, February 16, 1830, 
 Ferdinand J. Dreer Collection, III, 76, Hist. Soc. of Pa., a letter marked 
 
NOTES 251 
 
 Private, shows very well Cameron's familiarity with what was going on 
 politically in Pennsylvania. 
 
 13 Cameron to Shulze, New Orleans, November 28, 1831, Cameron 
 Papers, Society Collection Mss., Hist. Soc. of Pa, 
 
 14 Pennsylvania Reporter, March 9, 1832; Niles* Register, XLII (March 
 24, 1832), 72. 
 
 15 Cameron to John A. Dix, Middletown, July 17, 1833, Van Buren 
 Papers, XVIII, Library of Congress. 
 
 16 James D. Richardson, ed., Messages and Papers of the Presidents 
 1789-1897 (Washington, 1897), II, 448. 
 
 17 Meneely, op. cit., 76-77; Stanwood, op. cit., 153-154; Niles 1 Register, 
 XXXVIII (April 24, 1830), 169-170, XL (April 16, 1831), 126-127; 
 Pennsylvania Reporter, Harrisburg, April 23, 1830. 
 
 18 Carl Sandburg, op. cit., I, 148. 
 
 19 The Antimasonic convention met at Baltimore in September, and 
 that of the National Republicans in the same city in December, 183 1. 
 
 20 Ante., 9. 
 
 21 Niles' Register, XLII (May 26, 1832), 234-235; Pennsylvania Re- 
 porter, May 25, 1832. 
 
 22 The Pennsylvania legislature in both houses unanimously passed 
 a resolution urging their Representatives and Senators at Washington 
 to endeavor to obtain a renewal of the Charter of the Bank of the 
 United States. Bartlett, op. cit., 41. That Jackson was able to carry 
 Pennsylvania in 1832 by a substantial majority over Clay, in spite of the 
 veto of the bill to re-charter the bank, was due, Bartlett feels, to sheer 
 popularity and the impulse of party loyalty. Ibid., 44. 
 
 ^Pennsylvania Reporter, March 9, 1832; Niles 1 Register, XLII (March 
 10, March 24, 1832), 24, 72. 
 
 24 Editorial from the Argus quoted in Pennsylvania Reporter, July 
 6, 1832. This editor had not caught the trend, but Cameron had. Pos- 
 sibly the masses of Jackson men had never given any thought to the 
 Bank until after Jackson vetoed it. Up to that time they simply followed 
 Pennsylvania leaders who favored the Bank. 
 
 25 Stanwood, op. cit., 164. 
 
 26 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, December 29, 1836, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 27 Cameron to Van Buren, Middletown, December 5, 1832, Van 
 Buren Papers, Library to Congress. 
 
 28 Egle, Biographical Encyclopedia, 221. Among the Simon Cameron 
 Papers in the Library of Congress is a program of the graduating ex- 
 ercises at West Point for June, 1832. Simon Cameron's name appears 
 among the names of the members of the Board of Visitors. Major- 
 General Winfield Scott was President of the Board. 
 
 29 John Bassett Moore, The Works of ]ames Buchanan (Philadelphia, 
 1908), II, 173 ff., correspondence with John Eaton, Roger B. Taney, 
 Edward Livingston, and President Jackson. 
 
2 5 2 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 30 Cameron to Buchanan, Harrisburg, December 4 and 7, 1833, Bu- 
 chanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. Both of these letters are burned around 
 edges. 
 
 31 Id. to id., Middletown, February 4, March 3 and 20, and Senate 
 Chamber, Harrisburg, March 22, 1834, Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc of Pa. 
 
 32 Cameron to Benj. J. Bonsall, Philadelphia, June 26, 1834, Dreer 
 Collection, Hist. Soc. of Pa. Cameron shows himself perfectly capable 
 of catering to the views of those of the opposition in order to further 
 his own purposes. 
 
 33 Cameron to W. Donaldson, Esq., Middletown, June 28, 1834, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 34 Buchanan to General Jackson, Lancaster, January 18, 1834, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 35 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, March 3 and 20, 1834, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 36 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, December 3, 1834, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 37 George Ticknor Curtis, Life of ] antes Buchanan (New York, 1883), 
 I, 227-228; Niles^ Register, XLII (December 13, 1834), 237. 
 
 38 Cameron to Van Buren, Harrisburg, December 6, 1834, Van Buren 
 Papers, XX, Library of Congress. 
 
 39 Meneely, op. cit., 77-78. 
 
 40 Cameron to Bonsall, Middletown, December 14, 1834, Dreer Col- 
 lection, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 41 Buchanan to General Jackson, Lancaster, July 15, 1834, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 42 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, August 13, 1834, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. Cameron excluded Governor Wolf from the 
 list of dignitaries who supported him. 
 
 43 Cameron to Bonsall, Middletown, November 20, 1834, Dreer Col- 
 lection, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 44 Bartlett, op. cit., 82 rT. 
 
 45 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, December 17 and 28, 1834, 
 Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 46 H. A. Muhlenberg to Cameron, Washington, December 28, 1834, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 47 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, January 9, 1835, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 48 David Petrikin to Van Buren, Danville, Pennsylvania, February 11, 
 1835, Van Buren Papers, XXI, Library of Congress. 
 
 49 American Sentinel [administration], Philadelphia, March 9, 1835, 
 and the Pennsylvania?! [anti-administration], March 14, 1835, articles on 
 the convention reprinted in Niles" Register, XL VIII (March 14, 1835), 
 20-21. 
 
 50 Cameron to Buchanan, n. p., March 22, 1835, Buchanan Papers, 
 Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
NOTES 253 
 
 ^ Nile? Register, XL VIII (May 16, 1835), 190. 
 
 52 Buchanan to Van Buren, Lancaster, May 21, 1835, Van Buren Papers, 
 XXI, Library of Congress; also found in Moore, Works of James Bu- 
 chanan, II, 442-443. 
 
 53 Way land Fuller Dunaway, A History of Pennsylvania (New York, 
 1935), 447-448. The vote was Ritner, 94,023; Wolf, 65,805; and Muhlen- 
 berg, 40,586. 
 
 54 Charles McCarthy, "The Antimasonic Party," American Historical 
 Association, Annual Report, 1902, I, 440-441. 
 
 55 Ibid., 469. 
 
 56 Cameron to Buchanan, n. p., May 20, 1835, Buchanan Papers, Hist. 
 Soc. of Pa. 
 
 57 Niles' Register, XLVIII (May 30, 1835), 226-229. 
 
 58 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, May 18, 22, 1836, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 59 America?! Sentinel, November 21, 1836. Almost every issue from 
 the day following the election, November 5, carries partial returns on 
 the Pennsylvania vote. 
 
 60 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, February 14, 1837, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 61 Cameron and Ovid F. Johnson to Van Buren, Harrisburg, February 
 24, 1837, Van Buren Papers, XXVI, Library of Congress. 
 
 62 Buchanan to Van Buren, Senate Chamber, February 28, 1837, 
 Moore, Works of James Buchanan, III, 246-247. 
 
 63 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, November 23, 1837, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 64 Id. to id., Middletown, November 23, December 28, 1837, and 
 Harrisburg, March 5, 1838, Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. The "P" 
 refers to David R. Porter. 
 
 65 Id. to id., Middletown, March 22, 28, June 4, 1838, Buchanan Papers, 
 Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Cameron to Coryell, Middletown, June 2, 14, 1838, 
 Coryell Papers, HI, 68, 70, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 66 William H. Egle, History of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
 (Philadelphia, 1883), 249-250; McClure, Old Ti?ne Notes of Pennsyl- 
 vania, I, 47-56; McCarthy, op. cit., 495-501; Burton Alva Konkle, Life 
 and Speeches of Thomas Williams (Philadelphia, 1905), I, 108- 119. 
 
 67 Albert Gallatin Riddle, Recollections of War Times (New York, 
 1895), l 19- Riddle, as well as other historians, has undoubtedly made 
 too much of the "feud" between Cameron and Stevens. The author has 
 interviewed W. Frank Gorrecht, of Lancaster, who has been for 
 almost a half-century a newspaper editor and publisher. In his youth, 
 Gorrecht knew personally both Cameron and Stevens. Gorrecht 
 claims that while the two men were supposed generally not to be on 
 speaking relations they made a practice of meeting in the back room 
 of the business establishment of a mutual friend for political confer- 
 ences. Gorrecht worked at this establishment and saw the coming and 
 
254 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 going of Cameron and Stevens and heard a part of their conversations. 
 It must be remembered that in 1838 they belonged to opposing parties. 
 In 1856 Stevens worked in the interest of Cameron for the senatorial 
 election. Post 159. In 1862 when Cameron was appointed Minister to 
 Russia Stevens is said to have remarked that Cameron understood the 
 problems of the war between the states better than any man of the ad- 
 ministration and that he had been "exiled to Siberia." 
 
 68 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, December 5 and 28, 1837, Bu- 
 chanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 69 Id. to id., Middletown, December 28, 1837, June 26, 1838, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 70 Id. to id., Middletown, July 5, 1838, Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of 
 Pa. 
 
 71 25 Cong., 3 Sess., House of Representatives, Executive Document 
 Number 229, 2, J. R. Poinsett to Cameron, War Department, July 21, 
 1838, and C. A. Harris to Cameron, Office of Indian Affairs, July 26, 
 1838. This document of one hundred twelve pages consists of the ma- 
 terial submitted by the War Department and Office of Indian Affairs 
 to the House of Representatives in obedience to the House resolution 
 of February 19, 1839, requiring information in relation to the execution 
 of the treaty of the first of November, 1837, with the Winnebago Indians. 
 Further reference to this document will be listed as Exec. Doc. No. 229. 
 
 72 Cameron to Coryell, Middletown, July 23, August 1, 1838, Coryell 
 Papers, III, 74, 75, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 73 Exec. Doc. No. 229, 2. 
 
 74 Cameron to Buchanan, Prairie du Chien, September 22, 1838, Bu- 
 chanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 75 Exec. Doc. No. 229, 4-6. 
 
 76 Ibid., 7-8, 13. 
 
 77 Ibid., 46-48. 
 78 /£/<!, 58-65. 
 
 19 Ibid., 65-79, 95-105. 
 
 80 Cameron had written to Buchanan from Prairie du Chien on Sep- 
 tember 22, 1838, in glowing terms of the great West with richer soil 
 than anything the Pennsylvania farmers dreamed of. He stated that 
 a few thousand acres at present prices would soon make a handsome 
 fortune, and that he had bought some and would buy more. He added 
 that he was in "treaty" for the only bank in the Territory of Iowa. It 
 looked like a handsome speculation and he would probably go into it. 
 Cameron seems always to have been on the scent of chances to engage 
 in profitable business ventures. 
 
 81 Exec. Doc. No. 229, 79-95. 
 
 82 Major E. A. Hitchcock stated, Hitchcock to Crawford, St. Louis, 
 November 6, 1838, Exec. Doc. No. 229, 7, that Philadelphia bank notes 
 were used to purchase the half-breed claims, while General Joseph M. 
 Street stated, statement, n. p., n. d., Exec. Doc. No. 229, 57, and Street 
 
NOTES 255 
 
 to Hitchcock, Prairie du Chien, January 8, 1839, Exec. Doc. No. 229, 
 64, that the money paid out was notes of the Middletown bank, of which 
 General Cameron was cashier; and that no other bank notes were flush 
 about Prairie du Chien at that time except miserable, depreciated paper 
 of Wisconsin. 
 
 83 Ida M. Street, "The Simon Cameron Indian Commission of 1838," 
 Annals of Iowa, VII, Third Series (1905), 1 15-139, 172-195. 
 
 84 One of the best examples of how far these stories strayed from the 
 documentary-supported facts is found in Rudolph Blankenburg's "Forty 
 Years in the Wilderness; or Masters and Rulers," The Arena, XXXIII 
 (January, 1905), 3-4. "His [Cameron's] first leap into notoriety came 
 through a shady transaction occurring during the administration of Van 
 Buren in which he was the authorized Government agent to pay the 
 Winnebago Indians a large sum of money in consideration of their re- 
 lease of certain lands to the United States. Cameron was at the time 
 President of a bank in Middletown, Pa., and it was charged that he de- 
 posited the specie intrusted to him for the discharge of debts of the 
 Indians, in his own bank, taking with him the equivalent of the amount 
 in new bank-bills. He is also said to have equipped himself with a large 
 stock of beads, gewgaws and cheap finery of the sort that would be 
 likely to strike the fancy of the aborigines. After having first induced 
 the Indians to accept his new Middletown bank notes, which they re- 
 garded as the prettiest money they ever saw, in payment of their claims 
 against the Government, he proceeded to sell the cheap stock in trade to 
 his easy dupes to an amount sufficient to cover nearly the entire payment 
 he had made to them. He had left the specie in his own bank before 
 starting on his mission, and he brought back nearly all the paper notes 
 which represented the amount. Whether the story was exaggerated or 
 not, it won for him the derisive title the 'Old Winnebago,' which clung 
 to him for a generation." Here Mr. Blankenburg with an "it is charged" 
 launched into a scurrilous story, rather current in his day, the facts of 
 which are disproved by even a cursory examination of the documents. 
 This article by Blankenburg is rather long and covers other periods of 
 Cameron's life. He handles the facts as lightly and with as little 
 regard for the truth in these other periods as in the one just quoted. 
 
 85 Cameron to Simon Gratz, Middletown, December 11, 1838, Grantz 
 Collection, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 86 Written communication of ten Indian chiefs in reply to a speech 
 to them by Commissioner Fleming explaining his purpose in calling them 
 together, September 26, 1839, Prairie du Chien, File F 156, Records of 
 Interior Department, National Archives. 
 
 87 Nicholas Boilvin to Cameron, Prairie du Chien, September 30, 
 1839, St. Louis, October 22, December 20, 1839; Saterlee Clark to Cam- 
 eron, Prairie du Chien, October 12, 1839; Judge J. H. Lockwood to 
 Cameron, St. Louis, October 24, 1839, Cameron Papers. 
 
256 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 88 Judge J. H. Lockwood to Cameron, St. Louis, October 24, 1839, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 89 George M. Brooks to D. M. Brodhead, Prairie du Chien, May 22, 
 1839, Cameron Papers. 
 
 90 George M. Brooks to Cameron, Fort Crawford, August 14, 1839, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 91 John Fleming, Jr., to Cameron, New York, December 5, 1839, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 92 Cameron to Buchanan, Lancaster, December 10, 1839, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 93 John Fleming, Jr., Report on the Winnebago Claims Settlements, 
 January n. d., 1840, Prairie du Chien, File F 156, Record of Interior 
 Department, National Archives. 
 
 94 John Fleming, Jr., to Cameron, Washington, March 7, 1840, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
 95 James Cooper to Cameron, Washington, May 15, 1840, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 96 Contest for United States senatorship, 1855, post, 139. 
 
 97 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, April 22, 1839, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 98 Meneely, op. cit., 79. 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 1 Ante, io-ii. See also footnote 33, 249. 
 
 2 Dunaway, op. cit., 464-467. The Bank of Middletown co-operated 
 with the state to the fullest extent in the matter of relief notes. 
 
 3 The Protector (Harrisburg), February 22, 1842, quoted in Asa 
 Earl Martin and Hiram Herr Shenk, eds., Pennsylvania History Told by 
 Contemporaries (New York, 1925), 420-422, presents an article by 
 an anonymous author summarizing the resources and credit of Pennsyl- 
 vania. 
 
 4 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, February 14, 1837, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 5 Id. to id., Middletown, May 27, 1839, and Philadelphia, May 28, 1839, 
 Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. Forney at that period was a Demo- 
 cratic editor and an ardent supporter of Buchanan. 
 
 e Id. to id., Middletown, May 15, 1844, Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. 
 of Pa. The author quotes here at some length not only to show Camer- 
 on's sensing of reserve toward him on the part of Buchanan, but also to 
 show how loyal was his devotion to Buchanan. It will be seen how, 
 during the next year, they parted political company and were at times 
 in the 'fifties bitter political opponents. 
 
 7 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, January 14, 1842, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 8 Id. to id., Middletown, February 21, 1842, Buchanan Papers, Hist. 
 Soc. of Pa. 
 
NOTES 257 
 
 9 Id to id., Middletown, March 5, 1842, Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. 
 of Pa. 
 
 10 Id. to id., Middletown, March 9, 1842, Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. 
 of Pa. 
 
 11 Pennsylvania Reporter, Harrisburg, October 21, 1842. 
 On joint ballot Democrats Whigs, etc. 
 
 Senate 19 14 
 
 House 60 40 
 
 79 54 2 5 majority 
 
 12 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, October 14, 1842, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 13 Pennsylvania Reporter, Harrisburg, January 10, 1843. 
 
 14 Stanwood, op. cit., 206. 
 
 15 Cameron to Buchanan, Harrisburg, January 23, 1844, Buchanan 
 Papers Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 16 Washington Globe, February 5, 1844, and reprinted by Niles^ Reg- 
 ister, LXV (February 14, 1844), 392-393. A somewhat similar letter had 
 been written by Johnson to Col. Seth Salisbury, White Sulphur, Ken- 
 tucky, January 20, 1844, quoted in Niles' Register, LXVI (March 9, 
 1844), 23-24. 
 
 17 Richard M. Johnson to Cameron, White Sulphur, Kentucky, Feb- 
 ruary 9, 1844, quoted in the Globe, March 6, 1844, and in Niles' Register, 
 LXVI (March 9, 1844), 24; a part of this letter, but without date, is 
 also quoted in Leland W. Meyer, The Life and Times of Colonel Rich- 
 ard M. Johnson of Kentucky (New York, 1932), 462. 
 
 18 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, January 21, 1844, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 19 Muhlenberg had the united support of his party and his election was 
 assured, but in the midst of the campaign on August twelfth, he died 
 from a stroke of apoplexy. Frances R. Shunk of Pittsburgh was then 
 chosen to continue the campaign as the Democratic standard-bearer. 
 
 20 American Sentinel (Philadelphia), March 9, 1844. 
 21 Niles' Register, LXVI (May 4, 1844), 153-157. 
 22 Stanwood, op. cit., 209-211. 
 
 23 Moore, Works of James Buchanan, V, 437-439. 
 
 24 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, May 15, 1844, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 25 Buchanan to Mrs. James J. Roosevelt, Washington, May 13, 1844, 
 Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Moore, Works of James Buchanan, 
 VI, 1-3. 
 
 ^Buchanan to Henry D. Foster and Benjamin H. Brewster, Wash- 
 ington, May 25, 1844, Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Moore, Works 
 of James Buchanan, VI, 4. 
 
 27 Benjamin F. Butler to Van Buren, Baltimore, May 27, 1844, Van 
 Buren Papers, L, Library of Congress. 
 
258 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 28 Niks' Register, LXVI (June i, 1844), 21 1-2 16; Stanwood, op. cit., 
 211-212. 
 
 29 I. L. O 'Sullivan to Van Buren, Baltimore, May 27, 28, 1844, Van 
 Buren Papers, L. Library of Congress. 
 
 30 National Intelligencer, May 29, 1844; N ties' Register, LXVI (June 
 1, 1844), 2 1 1-2 16; Stanwood, op. cit., 212. 
 
 31 National Intelligencer, May 30, 1844. 
 
 32 Silas Wright to B. F. Butler, Washington, May 29, 1844, in Jabez 
 D. Hammond, Life and Times of Silas Wright (Syracuse, 1848), 471-472. 
 The magnetic telegraph, a new invention, with a line from Baltimore 
 to Washington, had been put into use just as this convention opened. 
 
 33 Mies' Register, LXVI (June 1, 1844), 211, 216-218. 
 
 34 William E. Dodd, Jefferson Davis (Philadelphia, 1907), 63. 
 
 35 Benjamin F. Butler to Van Buren, New York, May 31, 1844, Van 
 Buren Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 36 Polk Papers, Library of Congress, for May, 1844. 
 
 37 Stanwood, op. cit., 199-201, 215-216. 
 
 38 Mies' Register, LXVI (May 4, 1844), 146-148. 
 
 39 Stanwood, op. cit., 220-221. 
 
 40 Ante, 47. See also footnote 21, 257. 
 
 41 Henry Clay to Thomas M. Peters and John M. Jackson, Ashland, 
 July 27, 1844, Niles' Register, LXVI (August 31, 1844), 439, copied from 
 the North Alabamian, August 16, 1844. He declared that "far from 
 having any personal objections to the annexation of Texas, I should be 
 glad to see it, without dishonor — without war, with the common con- 
 sent of the Union, and upon just and fair terms." In his Raleigh letter 
 he had made a point of the slavery issue, and the fact that because of it 
 a considerable and respectable portion of the confederacy was opposed 
 to admission of Texas. In the new letter he declared: "the subject of 
 slavery ought not to affect the question one way or the other. ... It 
 would be unwise to refuse a permanent acquisition, which will exist as 
 long as the globe remains, on account of a temporary institution." 
 
 42 Buchanan himself had expressed a strong opinion against portions 
 of the Tariff of 1842, while favoring reasonable discriminations and in- 
 cidental protection, Buchanan to , Lancaster, September 6, 
 
 1844, and Buchanan to Polk, Lancaster, November 4, 1844, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Moore, Buchanan, VI, 70, 72-74. 
 
 43 James K. Polk to John K. Kane, Columbia, Tennessee, June 19, 
 1844, Mies' Register, LXVI (July 6, 1844), 295. 
 
 44 Robert J. Walker to Polk, Baltimore, May 20, 1844, Polk Papers, 
 Library of Congress, and quoted in Justin H. Smith, The Annexation of 
 Texas (New York, 191 1), 314. 
 
 45 Eugene Irwin McCormac, James K. Polk (Berkeley, 1922), 66$. 
 
 46 Carl Schurz, Life of Henry Clay (New York, 1899), II, 257. 
 
 47 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, July 2, 1844, Buchanan Papers, 
 Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
NOTES 259 
 
 48 Ibid. 
 
 49 Id. to id., Middletown, July 21, 1844, Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of 
 Pa. 
 
 50 Buchanan to Polk, Lancaster, September 23, 1844, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 51 H. A. Muhlenberg to J. K. Polk, Reading, August 6, 1844, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 52 Cameron to Polk, October 18, 1844, Polk Papers, Library of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 53 McCormac, op. cit., 278. 
 
 54 Quoted in Justin H. Smith, op. cit., 314. 
 
 55 Buchanan to , Lancaster, September 6, 1844, Buchanan 
 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Moore, Buchanan, VI, 70. 
 
 56 Nile s' Register, LXVII (November 23, 1844), 181. The official 
 Pennsylvania vote stood: Polk, 167,245; Clay, 160,863; Birney, 3,133. 
 
 57 Buchanan to Shunk, Harrisburg, August 14, and Lancaster, August 
 15, 1844, Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Moore Buchanan, VI, 66-69. 
 
 58 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, September 5, 1844, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 59 Niles' Register, LXVII (November 2, 1844), 131. 
 
 60 Buchanan to Polk, Lancaster, November 4, 1844, Buchanan Papers, 
 Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Moore Buchanan, VI, 72-74. 
 
 61 Polk to Buchanan, Washington, February 17, 1845, and Buchanan 
 to Polk, Washington, February 18, 1845, Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. 
 of Pa.; Moore, Buchanan, VI, 110-112. 
 
 62 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, December 7, 1 844, Buchanan 
 Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 63 Id. to id., Philadelphia, January 23, 1845, Buchanan Papers, Library 
 of Congress. 
 
 64 Id. to id., Harrisburg, February 8, 1845, Buchanan Papers, 
 Hist. Soc. of Pa. In another letter, id. to id., Middletown, Feb- 
 ruary 26, 1845, Buchanan Papers, Library of Congress, Cameron, noting 
 that it was taken for granted at Harrisburg that Buchanan would leave 
 the Senate for the cabinet, declared: "The feeling in regard to it among 
 your friends is one of mingled pride and regret. Every sensible man says 
 you do right, while they all think the Senate will need your experience 
 and talents to retain its present high character. Your opponents of the 
 Whig party, all, in speaking of you now, express gratification that 
 Penn. has one man, whom the whole nation seems willing to call to 
 the second place in Government, without a word of complaint. Those 
 few in our ranks who have been your enemies are struck dumb by the 
 general burst of approbation. My vanity is raised because it proves what 
 I have alwavs said, that we shall yet have our state pride so deeply 
 fixed that you will be looked upon as common property." 
 
 65 Parts of Woodward's letter to the Native Americans on the sub- 
 ject of tariff are quoted in Niles' Register, LXVIII (June 28, 1845), 263. 
 
2 6o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 66 Pennsylvania Telegraph (Harrisburg), March 15, 1845; N ties' 
 Register, LXVIII (March 22, 1845), 32. 
 
 67 McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 96. 
 ™lbid., I, 94. 
 
 69 The Order of United Americans became known as the Know 
 Nothing Order. Upon entering the political field the party became 
 known as the Native American, or American, Party, though the Know- 
 Nothing label still clung to them. 
 
 70 The Cameron Papers contain these letters of inquiry from the Na- 
 tive Americans and from the Whigs, with copies of Cameron's replies, 
 to the Native Americans on March 12, 1845, and to the Whigs on March 
 13, 1845; NUes 1 Register, LXVIII (June 28, 1845), 264-265, gives the 
 Whig letter with General Cameron's reply. 
 
 71 James Cooper and John Banks ranked third and fourth on early 
 ballots with also several scattered votes for other candidates. Pennsyl- 
 vania Telegraph, March 15, 1845. 
 
 72 Pennsylvania Telegraph, March 15, 1845. 
 
 73 Quoted in Wiles' Register, LXVIII, May 3, 1845. 
 
 74 Ante, 58. See also footnote 64, 259. 
 
 75 Cameron to Buchanan, Harrisburg, March 13, 1845, Cameron Pa- 
 pers. 
 
 76 Lewis S. Coryell to John C. Calhoun, Washington, April 6, 1845, 
 Correspondence Addressed to John C. Calhoun 1837-1849, edited by 
 Chauncey S. Boucher and Robert P. Brooks, American Historical As- 
 sociation Annual Report, 1929, 292. 
 
 77 John W. Forney to Morton McMichael, Lancaster, March 14, 1845, 
 John W. Forney Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 78 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, March 27, 1845, Buchanan 
 Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 79 Wiles' Register, LXVIII (June 28, 1845), 262-265, published the 
 " Address to the Democracy of Pennsylvania" and the major part of the 
 correspondence, with Dallas and Buchanan. Buchanan's letter may be 
 found in Moore, Buchanan, VI, 137-139. The Democratic Union, June 
 25, 1845, published the replies of both Buchanan and Dallas. 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 !Milo M. Quaife, ed., u The Diary of James K. Polk" (Chicago, 
 1910), April 25, 1846, I, 357. 
 
 2 St. George L. Sioussat, ed., "Papers of Major John P. Heiss of Nash- 
 ville," Tennessee Historical Magazine, II, nos. 2, 3 (June, September, 
 19 1 6), 137-147; 208-230. Dr. Sioussat presents in his introduction, sup- 
 plementary to the letters, a keen analysis of the transactions which led 
 to the establishment of the Union. Wiles' Register, LXVIII (May 10, 
 1845), 153, announces the establishment of the Union as the official 
 organ of the Polk administration, and quotes the Globe announcement 
 
NOTES 261 
 
 of the transfer of that establishment to Messrs. Ritchie and Heiss. The 
 first number of the Union appeared on May 1, 1845. 
 
 3 Thomas Hart Benton, Thirty Years View (New York, 1856), II, 
 650-651. 
 
 4 Francis W. Pickens to John C. Calhoun, Edgewood, September 9, 
 1844, J. Franklin Jamison, ed., Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, 
 American Historical Association, Annual Report, 1899, II, 968-969. 
 
 5 John Tyler to Thomas Ritchie, Sherwood Forest, January 9, 1851, 
 Lyon Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers (Richmond, 
 1885), II, 409-411; this letter was published in the Union, January 15, 
 1851. 
 
 6 Diary, April 25, 1846, I, 356-359. 
 
 7 William E. Smith, The Francis Preston Blair Family in Politics 
 (New York, 1933), I, 178-179. Donelson again refused when a few weeks 
 later Polk almost begged him to accept associate editorship with Ritchie 
 on the new paper, and promised him that a business partner would 
 advance all of the money, leaving him and Ritchie to pay nothing; that 
 he would get the printing of Congress which in a short time would 
 make a fortune for him. James K. Polk to A. J. Donelson, Washington, 
 March 28, 1845, St. George L. Sioussat, "The Letters of James K. Polk 
 to Andrew J. Donelson; 1843- 1848," Tennessee Historical Magazine, III 
 (March, 191 7), 62-64. 
 
 8 Benton, op. cit., 651-655. 
 
 9 Tyler, op. cit., 409-411. 
 
 10 Union, January 15, 1851, and quoted in Sioussat, "Papers of Major 
 John P. Heiss . . . , "Tennessee Historical Magazine, II, 212. 
 
 11 Globe, December 31, 1850; Union, January 2, 1851. 
 
 12 Sioussat, "Papers of Major John P, Heiss . . . ," loc. cit., II, 212-213; 
 Blair to Jackson, April 17, 1845, Jackson Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 13 William A. Harris to John C. Calhoun, Washington, July 11, 1845, 
 Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, loc. cit., II, 1042. 
 
 14 Cameron to Coryell, Middletown, March 31, April 12, 1845, Coryell 
 Papers, IV, 28, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 15 Sioussat, "Papers of Major John P. Heiss . . . ," loc. cit., II, 221. 
 ls Ibid., 221-222. 
 
 17 Ibid., 213; Globe, December 31, 1850. 
 
 18 Benton, op. cit., 655. 
 
 19 Buchanan to Horatio King, Wheatland, July 14, 1866, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Moore, Buchanan, XI, 420-421. 
 
 20 Blair to Cameron, Silver Springs, August 27, 1856, Cameron Papers. 
 
 21 Senate Journal, 28 Cong., 2 Sess., Appendix, 285-287. 
 
 22 Pennsylvania Telegraph (weekly), July 16, 1845; Harrisburg Dem- 
 ocratic Union (weekly), July 16, 1845. 
 
 23 McClure, op. cit., I, 98-99. 
 
 24 Cameron to Buchanan, Harrisburg, March 13, 1845, Cameron Papers. 
 
 25 James Daniel Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Pa- 
 
262 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 pers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Washington, 1897), IV, 385-416; 
 Congressional Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 4-1 1. 
 
 26 Diary, December 2, 1845, I, iio-m. Cameron's charge, however, 
 that the people of Pennsylvania had been deceived by the Kane letter, 
 did not come with good grace from his lips, for if deception had been 
 employed, he himself had been one of the chief offenders. See ante, 
 
 54-55- . 
 
 27 Richardson, op. cit., IV, 378-379. 
 
 28 Ibid., 403-406. 
 
 29 Walker, a Senator from Mississippi when the 1842 tariff was passed, 
 had bitterly opposed it. He was opposed to the doctrine of protection, 
 believing that protective duties bore unjustly and severely upon the agri- 
 cultural section with which he was identified. He came to his new of- 
 fice with a determination to overthrow the 1842 Act which he had been 
 unable to defeat in the Senate. Blaine, writing about him forty years 
 later, considered Walker "a man of great originality, somewhat specula- 
 tive in his views, ond willing to experiment on questions of revenue to 
 the point of rashness." James G. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress 
 (Norwich, 1884), I, 194. 
 
 30 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., Appendix, 8-13. 
 
 31 On July 29, 1846, the day the Walker Tariff was passed by Congress, 
 Buchanan wrote confidentially to John W. Forney, editor of the Penn- 
 sylvanian, of his great dissatisfaction with this Tariff Act, of his pref- 
 erence for the Tariff of 1842, and of his belief that the new Act would 
 "operate more prejudicially on Pennsylvania than any other State." 
 Moore, Buchanan, VII, 43-45. Similar sentiments were expressed in his 
 letter to Henry D. Foster on November 19, 1846, Moore, Buchanan, 
 
 vn, 117. 
 
 32 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 670. 
 
 33 Ibid., 991. The Harrisburg Democratic Union, January 21, 1846, 
 commenting on the unanimous adoption of this resolution in the senate 
 of Pennsylvania where it was introduced, says that it is "another evi- 
 dence that Pennsylvania is determined to adhere to that policy which 
 has ever advanced her great interests, developed her resources, and given 
 employment to a large class of her citizens. In Pennsylvania the tariff 
 has never been a party question. Pennsylvania supported the tariff acts 
 of 1 8 16, 1824, and 1828, and opposed the compromise act of 1883." 
 
 S4 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess. 1053. Niles 9 Register, LXX (July 
 11, 1846), 290, presents an analysis of the House of Representatives vote 
 by both states and parties. Also is reprinted an article from the Baltimore 
 Patriot of July seventh on the possibilities of the House tariff bill passing 
 the Senate. This article analyzes the vote on reference of the bill to the 
 committee on finance, which is regarded as a test vote, and speculates 
 on what attitude Vice President Dallas would take if he were called 
 upon to vote on the measure. 
 
 35 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 1045, 1049-1053, Appendix, 767-771. 
 
NOTES 263 
 
 3(i Charles Buxton Going, David Wilmot (New York, 1924), 84-93. 
 When the bill came back from the Senate with an amendment Wilmot 
 voted that the bill and amendment be laid on the table. This failed and 
 he later voted against concurring in the amendment of the Senate and 
 was again in the minority. Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 1165. 
 
 37 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 1081. 
 
 38 Ibid., 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 1132. 
 
 39 Ibid., 29 Cong., 1 Sess., Appendix, 11 30-1 137. 
 
 40 Ibid., 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 1144-1145, 1149-1155. 
 
 41 Ibid., 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 1143-1144, 1151-1155, Appendix, 
 1152-1154. 
 
 42 Ibid., 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 1156. 
 
 43 Philadelphia American Sentinel, July 30, 1846; Harrisburg Argus, 
 quoted in Niles' Register, LXX (August 29, 1846), 405. The Pittsburgh 
 Chronicle, quoted in the American Sentinel, July 30, 1846, declared that 
 "the people of Pittsburgh, of all classes and of whatever politics, are 
 favorable to the Tariff, and with one voice protest the recent action 
 of Congress on the Tariff. " 
 
 44 Cong. Globe, 1157-1158; McCormac, James K. Polk, 675-677. It 
 is to be noted that Vice President Dallas did not vote on the final pas- 
 sage of the Tariff Act of 1846. Blaine, Twenty Years in Congress, I, 
 195; McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 100; Cloud Moore 
 Fuess, Daniel Webster (Boston, 1930), II, 165; Roy F. Nichols, "George 
 Mifflin Dallas," Dictionary of American Biography, V, 39; and others 
 report that the Tariff Act of 1846 was carried in the Senate by the 
 casting vote of Mr. Dallas. An examination of the Congressional Globe, 
 and the Senate Journal for July 28, 1846, reveals that twice on that day 
 during debates on the tariff bill the Senate was locked with a tie vote: 
 first, on the motion to commit the bill to a special committee with in- 
 structions to modify it; and second, on the question of ordering the bill 
 to a third reading. In the first case Vice President Dallas voted in the 
 negative and in the second case he voted in the affirmative. In the vote 
 on the bill following the third reading twenty-eight Senators voted in 
 the affirmative and twenty-seven voted in the negative. Therefore Mr. 
 Dallas did not cast the deciding vote. 
 
 45 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 11 64-1 166. Representatives Robert 
 C. Winthrop (Massachusetts), George Rathbun (New York), and James 
 Thompson (Pennsylvania) led in the use of obstructionist tactics. 
 
 46 Diary, July 30, 1846, II, 55-56. 
 
 47 George Minot, ed., The Statutes at Large and Treaties of the United 
 States of America (Boston, 185 1), IX, 42-49. 
 
 48 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 128-130. 
 
 49 Ibid., 30 Cong., 1 Sess., 508; 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 432. The Pennsylvania 
 Telegraph, the Philadelphia Public Ledger, and other Pennsylvania news- 
 papers contain many notices of petitions for modification of the tariff 
 submitted by Senator Cameron in the United States Senate. 
 
264 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 50 F. W. Taussig, The Tariff History of the United States (New York, 
 1905), 6th edition, 121-122. 
 
 51 Philadelphia North American and United States Gazette, August 
 16, 1847. 
 
 52 Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, Chronicle, August 21, 1847. 
 
 53 Joseph Schafer, A History of the Pacific Northwest (New York, 
 1918), 173-185; "British Attitude toward the Oregon Question," Ameri- 
 can Historical Review, XVI (January, 191 1), 273-299. 
 
 54 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., Appendix, 4. 
 
 55 Ibid., 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 716-717, 720-721; Statutes at Large, IX, 109- 
 110. 
 
 56 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 717. 
 
 57 Ibid., 29 Cong., 1 Sess., Appendix, 1168-1178. 
 
 58 Ibid., 30 Cong., 1 Sess., 1060-1063. 
 
 59 Ibid., 30 Cong., 1 Sess., 1061,1078. 
 
 60 Diary, January 3, 1846, I, 152-153. 
 
 61 Cameron to Buchanan, n. p., December 25, 1845, Buchanan Papers, 
 Library of Congress. An earlier letter, id to id., Middletown, February 
 4, 1845, Buchanan Papers, Library of Congress, indicates that both 
 Buchanan and John M. Read were interested in obtaining appointment 
 to the Supreme Court. 
 
 62 Diary, December 24, 25, 1845, I, 137, 144. 
 
 e3 Ibid., January 22, 1846, 183-186; Niles' Register, LXIX (January 
 31, 1846), 342. In the course of the period when the Senate was con- 
 sidering the nomination of Judge Woodward, some rather unkind re- 
 marks were applied to the President by Cameron which tended to 
 widen the barrier that had developed between them. Polk's Diary, 
 January 28, 29, February 11, 1846, I, 198-203, 215-218. 
 
 64 Diary, August 1, 3, 1846, II, 61-62. The author finds no evidence to 
 support Blaine's contention (Thirty Years in Congress, I, 196) that 
 Cameron forced the President to nominate Judge Grier, or to confirm 
 McClure's implication (Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 99) that 
 Buchanan supported Woodward's nomination, but rather evidence to 
 the contrary. 
 
 65 Diary, January 3, February n, 1846, I, 151-152, 218-221. 
 
 66 Ibid, May 25, 27, 1846, I, 426, 430. 
 
 67 Ibid., May 28, 29, 1846, I, 435, 537. 
 
 68 Ibid., June 13, 1846, I, 468-469. 
 
 69 Ibid., June 24, 1846, I, 485-486. 
 
 70 Cameron to H. Simpson, Washington, January 11, 1847, Gratz Col- 
 lection, Hist. Soc. of Pa., Case 2, Box 24. 
 
 71 Samuel Flagg Bemis, A Diplomatic History of the United States 
 (New York, 1936), 236; Justin H. Smith, The Annexation of Texas 
 (New York, 191 1), 7, 19; George Pierce Garrison, Westward Extension 
 (New York, 1906), 101-105, volume XVII of The American Nation, 
 edited by Albert B. Hart. 
 
NOTES 265 
 
 ™ Folk's Diary, May 9, 1846, I, 384-386. 
 
 73 Richardson, op. cit., IV, 437-443. 
 
 14 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 791-804; Statutes at Large, IX, 9-10. 
 
 75 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 797, 803-804. 
 
 ™lbid., 30 Cong., 1 Sess., 95. 
 
 77 Ibid., 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 12 17. 
 
 78 Ibid., 1 2 18. 
 
 ~ iSi lbid., 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 1 220-1 221. 
 
 80 Ibid., 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 425. 
 
 81 Ibid., 555-556- 
 ^Ibid., 573. 
 
 88 Ibid., 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 551. 
 
 84 Ibid., 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 551. 
 
 85 Polk's Diary, April 15, 1847, II, 477-478. 
 m lbid., February 23, 28, 1848, III, 352, 364-365. 
 
 87 Senate Journal, 30 Cong., 1 Sess., Appendix, 644. 
 
 88 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 171. 
 
 89 Harrisburg Argus, quoted in Lewisburg Chronicle, August 28, 1847. 
 
 90 New York Tribune, December 11, 1847. 
 
 91 William Brua Cameron to Buchanan, Philadelphia, March 17, 25, 
 April 5, 10, 1847, Buchanan Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 92 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, April 10, 1847, Buchanan 
 Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 93 Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 1 Sess., 653. 
 
 94 Ibid., 30 Cong., 1 Sess., 60. 
 
 95 Philadelphia Public Ledger, March 6, 1849. 
 
 96 Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 687. 
 
 97 Pennsylvania Telegraph, March 10, 1849. Senator Foote was known 
 as a Southern Hotspur. He nearly came to blows with other Senators 
 during the next session, and his conduct, because of deliberately draw- 
 ing a loaded pistol from his pocket and cocking it in an altercation with 
 Senator Thomas H. Benton, was the subject of senatorial investigation. 
 New York Tribune, April 18, 19, 20, August 3, 1850. 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 1 Demcratic Union, July 9, 1845. 
 
 2 Niles' Register, LXIX (November 1, 1845), 135. 
 
 3 Niles' Register, LXIX (October 11, 1845), 96. 
 
 4 Ante, 13-14. 
 
 5 Niles' Register, LXX (May 2, June 6, 1846), 144, 213-214. By the 
 fall of 1848 the plans for a continuous railroad from Philadelphia to 
 Pittsburgh had materialized under the name of the Pennsylvania Rail- 
 road, and construction was in progress. An account of the route fol- 
 lowed from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, with grades, tunnels, and distances 
 between points, is set forth in an article in Niles' Register, LXXIV (No- 
 vember 29, 1848), 345. Three and a half years later the Pennsylvania 
 
266 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 legislature authorized the issuance of $5,000,000 of state bonds for the 
 furtherance of the project for railroad connections between Philadelphia 
 and Pittsburgh. The New York Tribune, May 5, 1852, while recog- 
 nizing this competition with New York's already completed lines by 
 way of the Lakes, congratulated Philadelphians on waking up to the 
 possibilities for extensive trade with the West. 
 
 6 Niks' Register, LXXI (October 24, November 7, 1846), 121, 150; 
 Biographical Directory of American Congresses, 1774-1927, 217. 
 
 7 Going, op. cit., 150-15 1. 
 
 8 Ibid., 154-155. 
 
 9 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 1165. 
 
 10 Cameron to Buchanan, n. p., October 20, 1846, Buchanan Papers, 
 Library of Congress. 
 
 11 Buchanan to Henry D. Foster, Washington, November 19, 1846, 
 Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Moore, Buchanan, VII, 11 7- 118. 
 
 12 Nile s' Register, LXXII (March 13, 1847), 20; Biographical Directory 
 of American Congresses, 1774-1927, 196, 203, 1 139. 
 
 13 Buchanan to Charles Kessler et al., Washington, August 25, 1847, 
 Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Moore, Buchanan, VII, 385-387; 
 also published in the Pennsylvanian, August 30, 1847. 
 
 14 Nile? Register, LXXIII (September 18, 1847), 45. 
 
 15 Buchanan to Charles Kessler et al., Washington, August 25, 1847, 
 Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Moore, Buchanan, VII, 385-386. 
 
 16 Dunaway, op. cit., 469. 
 
 17 Harrisburg Telegraph, November 2, 1847; New York Tribune, No- 
 vember 4, 1847. 
 
 18 Union, October 16, 1847; N ties' Register, LXXIII (October 23, 
 1847), 128. 
 
 19 Cameron to Buchanan, Middletown, October 28, 1847, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 20 <<p y " to Horace Greeley, Westchester, Pennsylvania, October 
 21, 1847, New York Tribune, October 25, 1847. 
 
 21 Pennsylvania Archives, Fourth Series, Papers of the Governors 
 (Harrisburg, 1902), VII, 275-276. 
 
 22 Cameron to Buchanan, Washington, July 7, 1 848, Buchanan Papers, 
 Library of Congress. Cameron was confined to his room by illness when 
 he wrote this letter. His reference to Wright is to Silas Wright of New 
 York, who refused the Democratic nomination for vice president in 
 1844 and successfully campaigned for the office of Governor of New 
 York that summer and fall. 
 
 23 George Plitt to Buchanan, Philadelphia, July 11, 1848, Buchanan 
 Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 24 New York Tribune, July 21, 1848; Niks' Register, LXXIV (August 
 2, 1848), 69. 
 
 25 Pennsylvania Archives, Papers of the Governors, VII, 283-285. 
 
 26 Niks' Register, LXXIV (September 6, 1848), 152. 
 
NOTES 267 
 
 27 Public Ledger, October 25, 1848; National Era, October 19, No- 
 vember 2, 1848; N ties' Register, LXXIV (November 1, 1848), 276, pre- 
 sents the official vote tabulated by counties. 
 
 28 Pennsylvania Archives, Papers of the Governors, VII, 280; Dun- 
 away, op. cit., 471-473- 
 
 29 Public Ledger, October 13, 1848. 
 
 30 Niles' Register, LXXII (April 24, 1847), 128. 
 
 31 Philadelphia Inquirer, quoted in N ties' Register, LXXII (April 17, 
 
 i847)» 97- 
 82 James Cameron to Simon Cameron, New Orleans, April 1, 1847, 
 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 ™Niles' Register, LXXIII, (September 25, 1847), 62 - 
 
 34 Ibid. (October 23, 1847), 126-127. 
 
 35 Cameron to B. Parke, Washington, January 6, 1848, Harris Papers, 
 Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 36 Ibid. 
 
 37 Union, February 14, 1848. 
 
 ™Niles' Register,' U^XW (August 2, 1848), 72. 
 
 39 Cameron to Buchanan, Baltimore, May 22, 23, 24, 1848, Cameron 
 Papers; id. to id., Middletown, May 27, 1848, Buchanan Papers, Library 
 of Congress. Two sets of delegates came from New York, both seeking 
 admission. The convention received both, alloting to each delegate a 
 half-vote. Neither delegation voted in the convention. The "Hunkers" 
 stayed, but the "Barnburners" left the convention. 
 
 40 National Era, May 25, June 1, 1848; New York Tribune, May 26, 
 1848. 
 
 41 National Era, June 15, 1848; New York Tribune, June 9, 1848. A 
 majority was sufficient to nominate in the Whig convention. 
 
 42 Niles' Register, LXXIV (July 5, August 16, 1848), 8, 109-110. 
 
 43 Stanwood, op. cit., 232. 
 
 44 William O. Lynch, "Zachary Taylor as President," Journal of 
 Southern History, IV (August, 1938), 282. 
 
 45 Stanwood, op. cit., 223, 243. Taylor and Cass received an equal 
 number of electoral votes outside of Pennsylvania. Van Buren and Cass 
 ran about even in New York. The Whig vote in New York was but 
 slightly below that of 1844. 
 
 4e Ibid., op. cit., 243. 
 
 47 Public Ledger, November 22, 1848; N ties' Register, LXXIV (No- 
 vember 22, 1848), 333. 
 
 48 National Era, December 14, 1848, presents the official vote of Penn- 
 sylvania by counties. 
 
 49 New York Tribune, November 8, 1848. 
 
 50 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., Appendix, 1133. 
 
 51 Pennsylvania Telegraph, November 21, 1848. The writer of this 
 article seems to have overlooked the election of 1796, when Pennsylvan- 
 
268 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 ia's vote was registered for Thomas Jefferson, and the election of 
 1824, when her vote was registered for Andrew Jackson. 
 
 52 Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 18-19. 
 
 53 James G. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress (Norwich, 1884), I, 
 194. 
 
 54 Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 18-19. 
 
 55 James Campbell to William Bigler, January 28, 1849, Bigler Papers, 
 Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 56 Cited in Pennsylvania Telegraph, December 5, 1848. 
 
 57 Public Ledger, January 6, 1849. 
 
 58 Ibid., January 10, 1849. 
 
 59 Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 231. 
 
 60 Buchanan to Wm. M. Meredith, Washington, June 12, September 
 25, 1848; Moore, Buchanan, VIII, 87, 202; Curtis, op. cit., II, 1-5. 
 
 16 Curtis, op. cit., II, 5. 
 
 CHAPTER VI 
 
 1 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 171, 428. 
 
 2 Fletcher M. Green, "Duff Green: Industrial Promoter," Journal of 
 Southern History, II (February, 1936), 4. This was the same General 
 Duff Green who figured so prominently as editor of the United States 
 Telegraph in the Jackson period. 
 
 3 James Cameron to Simon Cameron, New Orleans, April 1, 1847, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 4 The will, dated September 21,1 849, is among the Cameron Papers. 
 James, a Colonel of the 79th Regiment, New York Volunteers, known 
 as "The New York Highlanders," was killed July 21, 1861, at the Bat- 
 tle of Bull Run. 
 
 5 Cameron to Thomas Elder, n. p., February 22, 1848, Gratz Col- 
 lection, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 6 Thomas Elder to Cameron, Harrisburg, February 24, 1848, Gratz 
 Collection, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 7 Cameron Papers, for the period 1852-1856. 
 
 8 The Autograph Collection of Simon Gratz, Historical Society of 
 Pennsylvania, contains much correspondence of Cameron and the Gratz 
 brothers, Edward and David, which illustrates Cameron's problems with 
 his board in the making of loans to friends. Examining especially the 
 decade 1842 to 1852 we find that in October of 1842 Cameron's board 
 demanded a mortgage to cover the loans to Gratz as security for the 
 bank. After more than a year of negotigations the mortgage was granted. 
 Later the board exerted pressure for reduction of the principal, while 
 Gratz seems to have had difficulty in paying even the interest. In No- 
 vember Cameron wrote to Edward Gratz that he regretted that pro- 
 ceedings had been taken against his brother David; this was done en- 
 tirely without his authority and he had asked that they be stopped 
 immediately. There is no indication in this series of letters as to the 
 
NOTES 269 
 
 settlement of this difficulty. However, both Edward and David continued 
 to seek loans from Cameron's Bank of Middletown. They were put 
 off for some years, but in the early 1850s some further short-term 
 loans were made to them. 
 
 9 From notes taken on interviews with Mrs. W. H. Bradley (Eliza 
 McCormick Cameron), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, granddaughter of 
 Simon and daughter of J. Donald Cameron. Mrs. Bradley has a vast store 
 of information on the Cameron family; she graciously answered many 
 questions, clarifying several problems and providing information which 
 otherwise might have remained obscure. 
 
 10 Harris Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa., for the years 1855-1857. 
 
 11 Cameron Papers for 1853. 
 
 12 Philadelphia Inquirer, March 5, 1861. 
 
 13 John Bingham to Cameron, Philadelphia, January 13, 1854, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 14 Cameron to L. S. Coryell, Lochiel, August 26, September 18, 1857, 
 Coryell Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 15 Henry McCormick to Cameron, Harrisburg, June 5, 1858, Cameron 
 Papers. This is one of the several letters of similar tenor. 
 
 16 New York Tribune, October 12, 1850. The Democrats had a ma- 
 jority of one in the senate and twenty in the house, thus a majority 
 of twenty-one over the Whigs when the legislature met jointly in con- 
 vention. 
 
 17 George P. Hamilton to William Bigler, Pittsburgh, September 1, 
 1850, Bigler Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 18 E. A. Penniman to William Bigler, Philadelphia, September 3, 
 
 1850, Bigler Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 19 Id. to id., Harrisburg, January 5, 185 1, Bigler Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 20 William J. Hemphill to William Bigler, Harrisburg, January 6, 
 
 1 85 1, Bigler Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 21 New York Tribune, January 15, 1851. 
 
 22 E. A. Penniman to William Bigler, Harrisburg, January 11, 1851, 
 Bigler Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 23 New York Tribune, January 14, 1851. 
 
 24 Ibid., January 15, 1851. Governor William F. Johnston had declined 
 the nomination which was tendered to him by the caucus of the Whig 
 members of the legislature. The election was decided on the first bal- 
 lot. Brodhead received seventy-six votes while the Whigs scattered their 
 votes in a complimentary fashion among more than a dozen of their 
 prominent leaders. New York Tribune, January 16, 1851. 
 
 25 Samuel S. Bigler to William Bigler, Harrisburg, June 17, 1850, 
 Bigler Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 26 George Sanderson to William Bigler, Lancaster, August 20, 1850, 
 and A. Boyd Hamilton to Bigler, Clearfield, June 26, 1850, Bigler 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
2 7 o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 27 J. Glancy Jones to William BigJer, Reading, June 24, 1850, Bigler 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 28 Stephen Weston to William Bigler, Northumberland, August 29, 
 1850, Bigler Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 29 Thomas Tyler to William Bigler, Philadelphia, January 30, 185 1, 
 Bigler Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 30 G. R. Long to William Bigler, Halifax, February 18, 1850, Bigler 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 31 A. Ebough to William Bigler, York, January 28, 1851, Bigler Papers, 
 Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 32 G. R. Long to William Bigler, Halifax, February 18, 1850, and James 
 Campbell to William Bigler, Philadelphia, February 5, 1851, Bigler 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 33 F. W. Hughes to William Bigler, Pottsville, August 25, 1850, Bigler 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 34 Samuel S. Bigler to William Bigler, Harrisburg, June 17, 1850, 
 Bigler Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 35 William Dock to William Bigler, Harrisburg, August 30, 1850, 
 Bigler Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 36 Id. to id., Harrisburg, September 4, 1850, Bigler Papers, Hist. Soc. 
 of Pa. 
 
 37 Samuel S. Bigler to William Bigler, Harrisburg, June 7, 1850, and 
 George Sanderson to William Bigler, Lancaster, August 20, 1850, Bigler 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 38 New York Tribune, June 5, 6, 7, 1851. 
 
 39 June 7, 1 85 1. 
 
 40 New York Tribune, June 25, 26, 1851. Washington Union, June 
 27, 1 85 1, presented a summary of the proceedings of this convention from 
 the Democratic angle. 
 
 41 New York Tribune, June 7, 1851; Cincinnati Gazette, June 10, 1851. 
 
 42 New York Tribune, November 1, 1851. John W. Forney in confi- 
 dence had joyfully telegraphed the Washington Union the day follow- 
 ing the election, "We have swept the State by over fifteen thousand." 
 Union, October 16, 1851. 
 
 43 James Buchanan to William Bigler, Wheatland, October 18, 1851, 
 Bigler Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 44 Tribune Almanac for 1852, 40. 
 
 45 Cameron to William Bigler, Middletown, October 18, 185 1, Bigler 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 4 6 Ibid. 
 
 47 Id to id., Philadelphia, November 22, 185 1, Bigler Papers, Hist. 
 Soc. of Pa. 
 
 48 James Burnside to William Bigler, n. p., December 27, 185 1, Bigler 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 49 Dunaway, op. cit., 477-478. 
 
 50 Buchanan to Jefferson Davis, Wheatland, March 16, 1850, Buchanan 
 
NOTES 271 
 
 to William R. King, Wheatland, March 20, 1850, Buchanan to Rev. 
 Jeremiah Schindel, Wheatland, October 28, 195 1, and William R. King 
 to Buchanan, Washington, March 20, 1850, Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. 
 of Pa. These letters are printed in Moore, Buchanan, VIII, 372-376. 
 
 51 Cameron to Col. Reah Frazer, Middletown, March 19, 1851, Auto- 
 graph Collection, Simon Cameron, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 52 Jefferson Davis to Buchanan, Senate Chamber, March 15, 1850, 
 Buchanan Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Rowland Dunbar, Jefferson Davis, 
 Constitutionalist (Jackson, Miss., 1923), I, 318-319; Moore, Buchanan, 
 VIII, 371-372. As a matter of fact, Buchanan wrote to Davis at this time, 
 March 16, repudiating the report that he had recoiled from the proposi- 
 tion to extend the Missouri Compromise line, and declared, "I am com- 
 mitted for the Missouri Compromise; and that committal shall stand" 
 Two months later he wrote to both Senator King and Senator Henry S. 
 Foote of Mississippi, arguing for extension of the Missouri Compromise. 
 Moore, Buchanan, VIII, 383-388. 
 
 53 George Sanderson to Bigler, Lancaster, August 20, 1850, and J. 
 Glancy Jones to Bigler, Reading, August 21, 1850, Bigler Papers, Hist. 
 Soc. of Pa. 
 
 54 George P. Hamilton to William Bigler, Pittsburgh, September 1, 
 1850, Bigler Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 55 A. B. Cummings to Bigler, Philadelphia, January 5, 1851, Bigler 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 56 Luther Kidder to Buchanan, Wilkes-Barre, May 11, 1851, Buchanan 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; Moore, Buchanan, VIII, 416. 
 
 57 Buchanan to Kidder, n. p., May 16, 1851, Buchanan Papers, Hist. 
 Soc. of Pa.; Moore, Buchanan, VIII, 417. 
 
 58 New York Tribune, June 3, 1851. 
 
 59 Cincinnati Gazette, June 6, 1851. 
 
 60 New York Tribune, June 3, 5, 6, 24, 1851. 
 
 61 Ibid., July 2, 1851. 
 
 62 Moore, Buchanan, VIII, 443-446. 
 
 63 New York Tribune, July 25, 1851. 
 
 64 Buchanan to Rev. Jeremiah Schindel, Wheatland, October 28, 1851, 
 Society Collection, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 65 Buchanan to Cave Johnson, Wheatland, December 22, 1851, March 
 30, 1852, Moore, Buchanan, VIII, 428-430, 447-449. 
 
 60 James Collan to Cameron, Pittsburgh, December 31, 1853, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 67 John C. Dunn to Cameron, Pittsburgh, December 22, 1853, February 
 18, 1854, February 17, 1855, Cameron Papers. 
 
 68 New York Tribune, February 6, 1852. 
 69 Ibid., March 5, 1852. 
 
 70 The 6th, 13th, 14th, and 16th Congressional Districts. 
 
 71 New York Tribune, March 6, 1852. 
 
 72 Ibid. 
 
272 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 73 Stanwood, op. cit., 246-247. 
 
 74 Ibid., 247; New York Tribune, June 19, 1852. The letter read be- 
 fore the convention was written by Scott to W. S. Archer on Tues- 
 day night, June 15, just before the opening of the convention. Scott 
 declared he had decided to write nothing to the convention or to any 
 individual member before nomination, and if nominated would express 
 in his acceptance his views on the compromise measures. 
 
 75 New York Tribune, June 3, 4, 1852. 
 
 76 June 2, 1852. 
 
 77 Buchanan to David R. Porter, Wheatland, June 4, 1852, Moore, 
 Buchanan, VIII, 451-452. 
 
 78 Pierce, 282; Cass, 2; Buchanan, 2; and six dissenting votes, all from 
 Ohio. Cincinnati Gazette, June 7, 1852; New York Tribune, June 7, 
 1852. The latter gives a tally of the votes on all 49 ballots. 
 
 79 Scott, 159; Fillmore, 112; and Webster, 21. Cincinnati Gazette, 
 June 10-22, 1852; New York Tribune, June 17-22, 1852. The latter gives 
 a tally of votes through 53 ballots. 
 
 80 Stanwood, op. cit., 249, 252. 
 
 81 Curtis, Buchanan, II, 35. 
 
 82 New York Tribune, August 27, 1852. 
 
 83 Cameron to Lewis S. Coryell, Middletown, October 7, 1852, Coryell 
 Papers, IV, 108, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 84 Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, quoted in the National Era, October 
 28, 1852. This prophecy was fulfilled when in November the Pennsyl- 
 vania vote exceeded the vote of 1844 by almost fifty-five thousand. 
 
 85 William O. Lynch, "Anti-Slavery Tendencies of the Democratic 
 Party in the Northwest from the Election of General Taylor to the 
 Crisis of 1850," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XI, (December, 
 1924), 331. 
 
 86 Stanwood, op. cit., 256-257. 
 
 87 Evening Bulletin records the tally of Pennsylvania votes by coun- 
 ties, and is quoted in the New York Tribune, November 15, 1852; Wash- 
 ington Union, November 21, 1852; National Era, November 25, 1852. 
 
 88 Franklin Pierce to Buchanan, Concord, N. H., December 7, 1852, 
 Moore, Buchanan, VIII, 492-493. 
 
 89 Buchanan to Pierce, Wheatland, December 11, 1852, Moore, Bu- 
 chanan, VIII, 493-499. 
 
 90 Ante, 126-12 j. 
 
 91 Cincinnati Gazette, March 8, 1853. 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 1 Cameron to President Franklin Pierce, n. p., May 27, 1853, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 2 Buchanan to James Campbell, Wheatland, April 22, 1853, Cameron 
 Papers. This letter is marked "private and confidential." 
 
 3 The New York Express, quoted in the Cincinnati Gazette, July 3, 
 
NOTES 273 
 
 1854. Campbell, in denying Buchanan's responsibility for his appoint- 
 ment, asserted that an arrangement had been made between himself 
 and General Pierce before his election, by virtue of which he was to 
 secure for General Pierce the Catholic vote of Pennsylvania and receive 
 in return a seat in the Cabinet. Parker declared himself ready to make 
 affidavit to this statement of Campbell if it be disputed. 
 
 4 Cameron to L. S. Coryell, Middletown, February 19, 1853, Coryell 
 Papers, V, 15, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 8 Francis J. Grund to Cameron, Washington, February 25, March 
 22, 1854, Cameron Papers. 
 
 6 E. B. Chase to Cameron, Montrose, November 7, 1854, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 7 Reah Frazer to Cameron, Lancaster, December 31, 1853, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 8 William Strong to Cameron, n. p., December 31, 1853, Henry A. 
 Muhlenberg to Cameron, Reading, November 25, 1854, Cameron Papers. 
 
 9 L. Kidder to Cameron, Wilkes-Barre, February 1, 1854, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 10 Jeremiah S. Black to Cameron, n. p., February 20, 1854, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 11 David Wilmot to Cameron, n. p., n. d. (endorsed by Cameron, 
 February, 1854), and Towanda, February 28, 1854, Cameron Papers. 
 
 12 Washington Union, March 9, 1854. 
 r *lbid., March 16, 1854. 
 
 14 Ibid., June 23, 1854. 
 
 15 Cong. Globe, 33 Cong., 1 Sess., 532, 1254. 
 
 16 Union, May 28, 1854, quoted extensively from the Philadelphia 
 Argus and the Pennsyhanian, both of which applauded "with charac- 
 teristic boldness and promptitude" the action of the Pennsylvania Dem- 
 ocrats in Congress in supporting the Nebraska bill. 
 
 17 Cincinnati Gazette, June 9, 1854. 
 
 18 George W. Bowman to Cameron, Bedford, June 13, 1854, Judge 
 James Thompson to Cameron, Erie, June 15, 1854, Cameron Papers. 
 
 19 Pittsburgh Gazette (Whig), August 21 1854, and Philadelphia 
 Evening Bulletin, September 1, 1854; National Era, September 7, 1854. 
 
 ^William Bigler to Cameron, Clearfield, July 10, 1854, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 21 James Thompson to Cameron, Erie, June 15, 1854, Cameron Papers. 
 
 22 Isaac W. Hugus to Cameron, Bedford, September 6, 13, 1854, Cam- 
 eron Papers. Hugus was the Democratic candidate for the state senate 
 in a Whig district. When the money he requested of Cameron was 
 not sent he wrote that he hoped Cameron had no doubt of his integ- 
 rity to use the money as he had designated. 
 
 23 Whig Almanac for 185$, 57. Pollock, 204,008; Bigler, 167,001. 
 
 24 National Era, October 26, 1854; Cincinnati Gazette, November 17, 
 
274 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 1854, April 17, 1855. Of these twenty-five congressmen only four were 
 Nebraska men while twenty-one were anti-Nebraska. 
 
 25 Whig Almanac for 185$, 57. Black won the judgeship by a plural- 
 ity, for the "American" candidate's vote of 120,576 plus the vote of the 
 Whig candidate, 78,571, exceeded Black's vote by thirty-two thousand. 
 Mott's large majority was due to his having received the support of 
 both the Democrats and the "Americans." 
 
 26 Whig Almanac for 1854, 55; Whig Almanac for 1855, 57. Alexander 
 K. McClure, Abraham Lincoln and Men of War Times (Philadelphia, 
 1892), 149, expresses belief that the "Americans" really carried an 
 overwhelming majority of the members of the legislature, embracing 
 nominees of both parties. Because of the secrecy of the working of 
 this party at the time it is perhaps impossible to obtain data that is 
 thoroughly reliable. The figures used are those reported by the Whig 
 Almanac. As a matter of fact, when a caucus of "American" members 
 of the legislature was called on February 9, 1855, for the purpose of 
 nominating a candidate for United States Senator, it numbered 91 of 
 the 130 members of the legislature. 
 
 27 Quoted in National Era, November 9, 1854. 
 
 28 E. B. Chase to Cameron, Montrose, November 7, 1854. Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 29 George Rahn to Benjamin Christ, Philadelphia, November 4, 1854, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 30 Charles Frailey to Cameron, Owingsburg, November 6, 1854, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
 31 Cameron to L. S. Coryell, Harrisburg, December 25, 1854, Coryell 
 Papers, V. 30, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 32 Cooper had been in feeble health while in the Senate and could 
 not participate in the debates as he desired. His health and his failure to 
 take as decided an antislavery stand as his constituents expected of him 
 practically removed him from consideration for re-election. 
 
 33 Cameron to James Cooper, Harrisburg, January 30, 1855, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 34 James Cooper to Cameron, Washington, January 31, 1855, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 35 J. K. Kane to Cameron, Philadelphia, January 30, 1855, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 36 John M. Kirkpatrick to Cameron, Harrisburg, February 9, 1855, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 37 A copy of Cameron's reply to the Kirkpatrick letter is preserved 
 in the Cameron Papers, Library of Congress. This letter was printed 
 in the Cincinnati Gazette, January 26, 1857, though the date was erro- 
 neously given as 1856. 
 
 38 Printed report of the caucus of the "American" members of the 
 legislature filed with the Cameron Papers. 
 
 39 Unfortunately the writer has been unable to identify this clipping 
 
NOTES 275 
 
 as to paper or date. The clipping is among Cameron's papers of March, 
 1855. The content of the clipping unmistakably refers to the events of 
 February, 1855. 
 
 40 McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 387. 
 
 41 National Era, February 15, 1855. 
 
 42 Cincinnati Gazette, February 11, 1855. 
 
 43 A copy of this circular of February 12, 1855, is with the Cameron 
 Papers, and another copy in the Miscellaneous Collection of the His- 
 torical Society of Pennsylvania. 
 
 44 New York Times, February 13, 1855. 
 4B Keystone, February 21, 1855. 
 
 46 Going, op. cit., 467-468. Wilmot's correspondence favorable to 
 Cameron's candidacy for the senatorship was in February, 1854 (ante, 
 135). Subsequently Wilmot's district took the lead in the state in the 
 Democratic reversal. His district gave Pierce a majority of 2500 in 
 1852 and in 1854 gave Pollock a majority of more than 4000. This dem- 
 onstration of revolt against the Democratic machine was widely at- 
 tributed to Wilmot's influence and to the intensity with which he had 
 urged the issue upon his constituents. Leading newspapers of the dis- 
 trict immediataely launched a campaign for Wilmot's election to the 
 Senate. He looked with favor upon the movement but would not push 
 any advantage he had for fear of appearing as a selfish and ambitious 
 aspirant for the place. Going, op. cit., 465-466. 
 
 47 John C. Dunn to Cameron, Pittsburgh, February 17, 1855, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 48 K. Pritchett to Cameron, Washington, February 22, 1855, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 49 National Era, March 1, 1855. 
 
 50 New York Times, February 26, 1855. 
 
 51 Ibid., February 27, 1855; National Era, March 1, 1855. 
 
 52 Keystone, March 7, 1855; New York Times, February 28, 1855. 
 
 53 Keystone, March 7, 1855; New York Times, February 28, 1855; 
 National Era, March 8, 1855. 
 
 54 William Larimer, Jr. to Cameron, Pittsburgh, March 10, 1855, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 55 New York Times, March 9, 1855. 
 
 56 Cameron to James Veech, Harrisburg, April 28, 1855, Cameron 
 Papers. Veech had polled a few scattered votes during the recent bal- 
 loting for the senatorship. 
 
 57 L. A. Makey to Cameron, Lock Haven, September 12, 1855, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
 58 J. W. Coke to Cameron, Pottsville, September 28, 1855, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 59 H. E. Muhlenberg to Cameron, Lancaster, October 1, 1855, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
276 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 60 Henry B. Hoffman to Cameron, Lykens Tp., May 30, 1855, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 61 Cincinnati Gazette, April 9, 1855. 
 
 62 New York Times, June 9, 1855, devoted more than a page to the 
 printing of the speeches at the banquet. 
 
 63 Cincinnati Gazette, July 7, 1855. 
 
 ^National Era, February 28, 1856. Reported from speeches of W. 
 F. Johnston and James H. Campbell, in a convention of the order held 
 in Cincinnati on February 18, 1856. 
 
 65 Gaillard Hunt, Israel, Elihu, and Cadwallader Washburne (New 
 York, 1925), 31-35; Henry Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in 
 America (Boston, 1874), II, 410-41 1; Francis Curtis, The Republican 
 Party (New York, 1904), I, 179; James A. Woodburn, Political Parties 
 and Party Problems in the United States, Third Edition (New York, 
 1924), 97. 
 
 66 Gordon S. P. Kleeberg, The Formation of the Republican Party 
 as a National Organization (New York, 1911), 13-22. 
 
 67 Quoted in National Era, July 12, 1855. 
 
 G8 The Democrats of Pennsylvania were in convention at Harrisburg 
 on July 5, to nominate a canal commissioner. The two wings of the 
 party disagreed as to support of the national administration's policy. 
 
 69 Quoted in National Era, July 19, 1855. 
 
 70 National Era, August 16, 1855. 
 
 71 Ibid., September 13, 20, 1855; Pittsburg Gazette, September 6, 1855. 
 
 72 Alexander K. McClure, Our Presidents and How We Make The?n 
 (New York, 1900), 136. 
 
 73 National Era, October 4, 1855. 
 
 74 Tribune Almanac for 18 $6, 55. 
 
 75 Tribune Almanac for 1855, 57; Tribune Almanac for i8$6, 55. 
 
 76 Keystone, January 16, 1856. 
 
 77 Cong. Globe, 34 Cong., 1 Sess., 302. 
 
 78 Cameron Papers, 1854- 1856. 
 
 79 The "American" Party in the elections of 1854 and 1855 had elected 
 forty-three members to the national House of Representatives, and 
 nine governors of northern states. The party, acting with a measure of 
 secrecy, fearfully aggravataed the political confusion and bewilderment 
 of the times. 
 
 80 Proceedings of the First Three Republican National Conventions, 
 including Proceedings of the antecedent National Convention held at 
 Pittsburgh (Minneapolis, 1893), 7. 
 
 81 Kleeberg, op. cit., 34; George W. Julian, "The First Republican 
 National Convention," American Historical Review, IV (January, 1899), 
 313-322, provides an account of the convention by one of the leading 
 participants; National Era, February 28, 1856, carries a seven-column 
 report of the two days' session. 
 
NOTES 277 
 
 82 Stan wood, op. cit., 261-264; National Era, March 6, 1856; Cincinnati 
 Gazette, February 25, 26, 1856. 
 
 83 National Era, June 19, 1856. 
 
 84 Stanwood, op. cit., 265-269; Cincinnati Gazette, June 3-7, 1856; 
 National Era, June 5, 12, 1856. Both papers carry the votes by states 
 on the various ballots. 
 
 85 Proceedings of the First Three Republican National Conventions, 
 15, 53-59; Cincinnati Gazette, June 19, 1856. The Gazette printed a four- 
 column account of this second day's proceedings taken from the Phil- 
 adelphia Evening Bulletin. 
 
 86 Proceedings of the First Three Republican National Conventions, 
 61-66. 
 
 87 Allan Nevins, Fremont, The West's Greatest Adventurer (New 
 York, 1928), II, 488, citing Fremont's Manuscript Memoirs. 
 
 88 Thurlow Weed to Cameron, n. p., November 12, 1856, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 89 Stanwood, op. cit., 266-269. 
 
 90 Ibid., 271-273; Proceedings of the First Three Republican National 
 Conventions, 43-45. 
 
 91 Stanwood, op. cit., 275. 
 
 92 Item in the Cincinnati Gazette, June 25, 1856. 
 
 93 National Intelligencer, March 21, 1856, cited in Andrew Wallace 
 Crandall, Early History of the Republican Party (Boston, 1930), 262, 263. 
 
 94 New York Tribune, March 27, 1856, cited in Crandall, op. cit., 263. 
 
 95 Ruhl Jacob Bartlett, John C. Fremont and the Republican Party 
 (Columbus, 1930), 62-65; Crandall, op. cit., 263-264. 
 
 96 Russell Errett to S. P. Chase, Pittsburgh, August 2, 1856, cited in 
 Going, op. cit., 493. 
 
 97 Thurlow Weed to Cameron, Washington, August 15, 1856, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 98 Smith, The Francis Preston Blair Family in Politics, I, 369. 
 
 99 F. P. Blair to Cameron, Silver Springs, September 10, 1856, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
 100 Crandall, op. cit., 265, 268. 
 
 101 John W. Forney to George N. Sanders, Philadelphia, October 13, 
 1856, George N. Sanders Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 102 Xwo days after the election, when reports from some areas 
 seemed to forecast a Republican victory, Judge Timothy Ives, of 
 Coudersport, reported to Cameron that his county had carried by at 
 least four hundred and some believed the state had gone Republican. 
 He declared, "If that be true, what can prevent you from going to the 
 United States Senate?" He was ready to work to that end. Timothy 
 Ives to Cameron, Coudersport, Pa., October 16, 1856, Cameron Papers. 
 
 103 Crandall, op. cit., 269; Tribune Almanac for 1857, 48-49; Phila- 
 delphia North American, quoted in Cincinnati Gazette, October 30, 1856. 
 
278 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 104 E. D. Morgan to Gideon Welles, October 22, 1856, Welles Mss., 
 cited in Bartlett, Fremont, 64. 
 
 105 Alexander K. McClure, Recollections of Half a Century (Salem, 
 1902), 45-46. 
 
 106 Ibid., 45. 
 
 107 Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, reprinted in the Cincinnati Gazette, 
 October 25, 1856; National Era, October 30, 1856. 
 
 108 Cincinnati Gazette, October 22, 1856, reported from Philadelphia 
 by telegraph; Crandall, op cit., 278. 
 
 109 E. D. Morgan to Gideon Welles, October 27, 1856, Welles Mss., 
 cited in Bartlett, Fremont, 65. 
 
 110 Cincinnati Gazette, November 15, 1856; National Era, November 
 27, 1856. 
 
 111 Election returns are from the Tribune Almanac for 18 si, 48. The 
 Northwest was divided politically much as was Pennsylvania. The 
 Democrats were reduced to a minority in four of the states. They 
 carried Indiana by a majority and Illinois with a substantial plurality. 
 Stanwood, op. cit., 2j6; Roscoe Carlyle Buley, "The Political Balance 
 in the Old Northwest, 1820- 1860," Studies in American History Inscribed 
 to ]a?nes Albert Woodburn (Bloomington, 1926), 449. 
 
 112 Russell Errett, "The Republican National Conventions of 1856 
 and i860," Magazine of Western History, X (July, 1889), 264. 
 
 113 Crandall, op. cit., 277-278; correspondence of Charles Gibbons, 
 chairman of the Republican State Committee, and J. P. Sanderson, 
 published in Cincinnati Gazette, October 25, 1856, and in the National 
 Era, October 20, 1856. 
 
 114 Cameron to Weed, November 9, 1856, Weed Papers, University 
 of Rochester, quoted in Allan Nevins, Fremont, Fathmarker of the West 
 (New York, 1939), 454. Cameron was not far off in his indictment of 
 Whigs as campaign managers. However, Weed was a Whig. 
 
 115 Weed to Cameron, n. p., November 12, 1856, Cameron Papers. 
 
 116 Buchanan to Nahum Capen (of Boston), Wheatland, August 27, 
 1856, Moore, Buchanan, X, 88-89. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 1 Footnote 102, 277. 
 
 2 Wilmot to Cameron, Towanda, November n. d., 1857, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 3 Thaddeus Stevens to Cameron, Lancaster, November 30, 1856, Cam- 
 eron Papers. Actually three Democratic votes were sufficient. 
 
 4 John Kunkel to Cameron, Washington, December 15, 1856, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 5 Taggart had been one of the most violent opponents of Cameron 
 two years earlier when Cameron was seeking the senatorship. He had 
 written some of the most defamatory paragraphs against Cameron is- 
 sued to the public by a number of senators and representatives of the 
 
NOTES 279 
 
 Pennsylvania legislature. Cameron took summary vengeance upon him. 
 Taggart was solicitor for the Northumberland Bank and his father was 
 the responsible head of the bank. The family largely depended upon the 
 income from the bank for its livelihood. Cameron arranged with his 
 brother, William Cameron of Lewisburg, a large stockholder in the 
 Northumberland Bank, quietly to purchase more stock. He succeeded 
 in obtaining a majority of the stock with the result that at the next 
 election the Taggart family was removed and the friends of Cameron 
 put in their places. Taggart soon realized that Cameron was a dangerous 
 man for him to quarrel with, and after some months made satisfactory 
 terms with him. He was president of the senate and presided over the 
 convention which elected Cameron to the United States Senate in Jan- 
 uary, 1857, at which time he was an earnest supporter of Cameron. 
 Cameron was not forgetful of Taggart's services. In 1861, as the army 
 was enlarged, he appointed Senator Taggart paymaster of the regular 
 army. This gave Taggart a life office. McClure, Old Time Notes of 
 Pennsylvania, I, 270-271. 
 
 6 R. G. White to Cameron, Wellsboro, December 6, 1856, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 7 Philadelphia Public Ledger, January 5, 1857. 
 
 8 Buchanan to Henry S. Mott, Wheatland, January 7, 1857, National 
 Era, February 22, 1857. 
 
 9 Pennsylvanian, January 8, 1857. 
 
 10 Pennsylvania Telegraph, January 9, 1857. 
 
 ^Public Ledger, January 10, 1857. The remaining 25 votes were cast 
 as follows: John Robbins, 21; H. B. Wright, 3; C. A. Block, 1. 
 
 12 Ibid., January 12, 1857. 
 
 13 McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 266-267. 
 
 14 Ibid., 267-268. 
 
 15 Public Ledger, January 15, 1857. 
 
 16 McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 268; Cincinnati 
 Gazette, January 13, 1857; National Era, January 15, 1857. The account 
 of the arrangement for a meeting of three representatives of the caucus 
 with the three Democrats is McClure's version. The writer has found 
 no evidence which either refutes or corroborates McClure's account. The 
 newspapers note the excitement in the caucus on the evening of Jan- 
 uary twlfth and its adjournment, without arriving at a nomination, to 
 meet again the next morning. 
 
 17 McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 268-269. 
 
 18 Ibid., I, 270-273. Wagonseller's vote also was required, otherwise 
 Cameron would not have had a majority. 
 
 19 Ibid., I, 273. 
 
 20 Public Ledger, January 14, 1857; Cincinnati Gazette, January 14, 
 1857. 
 
 21 Telegrams and letters filed in the Cameron Papers. 
 
i8o 
 
 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 22 Buchanan to Henry S. Mott, Wheatland, January 7, 1857, National 
 Era, February 22, 1857. 
 
 23 National Era, February 22, 1857. 
 
 24 Public Ledger, January 15, 1857. 
 
 25 Pennsylvania Telegraph, January 27, 1857. 
 
 26 Pennsylvanian, January 14, 1857. 
 
 27 From notes of Colonel Henry Wharton Shoemaker, Archivist, 
 Pennsylvania State Library. Colonel James W. Quiggle, the maternal 
 grandfather of Colonel Shoemaker, had been won to Cameron's support 
 in his contest with Buckalew in 1855. Cameron remembered these ser- 
 vices and later aided not only Col. Quiggle but also his son, J. C. Quiggle, 
 in obtaining several foreign appointments. Col. James W. Quiggle was the 
 recipient of favors also from Buchanan. In April, 1859, he was appointed 
 to the consulate at Antwrep. Quiggle was not a strong Buchanan man 
 at the time and because of this and similar appointments from Pennsyl- 
 vania Buchanan was charged with excessive distribution of patronage 
 to Pennsylvania in buying up his enemies. Cincinnati Commercial, April 
 23, 1859. 
 
 28 Cameron Papers for April and August, 1857. New York contributed 
 funds for use in Pennsylvania in the fall campaign. The writer has no 
 evidence of New York's contributing money especially to secure the 
 election of Forney to the United States Senate. 
 
 29 Cong. Globe, 34 Cong., 3 Sess., 344. 
 so lbid., Appendix, 371. 
 
 31 Cameron to Henry Simpson, Lochiel, January 20, 1857, Gratz Col- 
 lection, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 32 Cameron to W. D. Lewis, n. p., February 27, 1857, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 33 Cong. Globe, 34 Cong., 3 Sess., Appendix, 383. 
 
 34 Ibid., 34 Cong., 3 Sess., Appendix, 387. 
 
 35 Ibid., 34 Cong., 3 Sess., Appendix, 387-391. 
 
 36 Thurlow Weed to Cameron, Albany, March 15, 1857, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 37 Ante, 125. 
 
 38 McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 274-275. 
 
 39 Buchanan to Forney, Wheatland, February 28, 1857, and Forney 
 to Buchanan, n. p., March 6, 1857, Moore, Buchanan, X, 104. 
 
 40 National Era, February 18, March 11, 1858; and New York Times, 
 March 25, 1858, take note of anti-administration activities of Forney, 
 in various parts of Pennsylvania, particularly on the Kansas question. 
 Buchanan had earlier witnessed with distress the defection and wrote to 
 a friend, "I mourn over Forney." Buchanan to J. B. Baker, Washington, 
 January 11, 1858, Moore, Buchanan, X, 177. 
 
 41 Crandall, op. cit., 281, and footnote 35; Roy F. Nichols, "John 
 Wien Forney," Dictionary of American Biography. 
 
NOTES 281 
 
 42 Cameron to L. S. Coryell, Washington, December 15, 1857, Coryell 
 Papers, VI, 61, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 43 National Era, March 12, 1857. 
 
 44 New York Times, June 10, 1857. 
 
 45 National Era, April 2, 1857. 
 40 Ibid., June 11, 1857. 
 
 47 Wilmot to Cameron, n. p., September 6, 1857, Cameron Papers. 
 
 48 Quoted in National Era, July 16, 1857. 
 
 49 Wilmot to David S. Brown, Harrisburg, September 28, 1857, New 
 York Times, October 2, 1857. 
 
 50 Tribune Almanac for 1858, 53; National Era, November 5, 1857, 
 printed the official totals for governor as taken from the Harrisburg 
 Telegraph. 
 
 ^Public Ledger, October 1, 1857. 
 
 52 Dunaway, op. cit., 482-483. 
 
 r,;H Wilmot to David S. Brown, Harrisburg, September 28, 1857, New- 
 York Times, October 2, 1857. 
 
 54 Cameron Papers, August, 1857, following. 
 
 "'Cameron to L. S. Coryell, Washington, February 11, 1858, Coryell 
 Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 56 Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, V, 449-454. 
 
 57 Ibid., 471-481; Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 533-535. 
 
 58 Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 14-18. This is the first of many 
 speeches of Douglas in Congress against the Lecomption "fraud." 
 
 59 Cameron to L. S. Coryell, Washington, February 26, 1858, Auto- 
 graph Collection, Simon Cameron, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 60 New York Times, January 29, 1858. 
 Q1 lbid., February 25, and March 24, 1858. 
 
 62 Ibid., March 24, 1858; National Era, February 18, and March 11, 
 1858. 
 
 63 National Era, June 3, 1858. 
 
 64 Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 603, 623. 
 
 66 Richard Malcolm Johnston and William Hand Browne, Life of 
 Alexander H. Stephens (Philadelphia, 1878), 329-330. 
 
 66 Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 1 Sess., Appendix, 109- no. The report of 
 the March fifteenth debate on the Kansas question occupies fiftv pages 
 of the Congressional Globe. 
 
 67 Ibid., 35 Cong., 1 Sess., n 33-1 134. 
 
 68 Wilmer C. Harris, The Public Life of Zachariah Chandler, 1851-1875 
 (Lansing, 191 7), 48; Joseph Warren Keifer, Slavery and the Four Years 
 War (New York, 1900), I, 100; Albert Gallatin Riddle, Life of Benjamin 
 F. Wade (Cleveland, 1866), 214. 
 
 <i0 Riddle, Life of Benjamin F. Wade, 215-216, presents the Wade copy 
 of this memorandum. 
 
 70 Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 1264-1265. The twenty-five votes 
 against the bill included nineteen Republicans, their total membership 
 
282 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 except Cameron; four Democrats, Daniel C. Broderick of California, 
 George E. Pugh of Ohio, Stephen A. Douglas and Charles E. Stuart of 
 Michigan; and two Native Americans, John Bell of Tennessee and 
 John C. Crittenden of Kentucky. 
 
 71 Ibid. , 1258; Cameron to George Bergner, Washington, March 28, 
 1858, Cameron Papers. 
 
 72 Cameron to George Bergner, Washington, March 28, 1858, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 73 Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 1436-1437. 
 
 74 New York Times, April 2, 1858; House Journal, 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 
 579-580. 
 
 75 Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 1899, 1905-1906. With the excep- 
 tion of Senator Pugh, who voted for the English Compromise, all the 
 Senators who opposed the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton 
 Constitution (footnote 70, 281-282) also opposed the English Com- 
 promise. 
 
 76 Ibid., 1898. 
 
 77 A. H. Reeder to Cameron, n. p., April 30, 1858, Cameron Papers. 
 78 Daniel W. Wilder, The Annals of Kansas (Topeka, 1875), 186-188. 
 
 79 Cameron to George Bergner, Washington, March 28, 1858, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 80 Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 143 1. Italics not in text. 
 
 81 Ibid., 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 1431. 
 
 82 Ibid., 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 678. 
 
 83 Ibid., 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 1443. 
 
 84 Ante, 1 1 3- 1 14. 
 
 85 Cameron to W. D. Lewis, Washington, May 20, 1858, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 86 Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 2563. The Cameron Papers contain 
 a memorandum of notes of remarks he made to a group that presented 
 one of these petitions to him in January. He offered nothing more to 
 laborers except such as would come through a Republican victory and 
 a protective tariff. 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 1 John W. O'Neile to Cameron, Philadelphia, May 13, 1858, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 2 Cameron to H. C. Carey, Washington, June 3, 1858, Edward Carey 
 Gardiner Collection, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 3 New York Times, June 16, 1858. The other speakers included Sena- 
 tors Jacob Collamer of Vermont and James F. Simmons of Rhode Island; 
 Messrs. Humphrey Marshall of Kentucky, and John Covode and Edward 
 Jay Morris of Pennsylvania, all members of the House of Representa- 
 tives; and Richard W. Thompson of Indiana, formerly a member of the 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 4 Ibid., March 5, 6, 1858. 
 
NOTES 283 
 
 *lbid., March 8, 1858. 
 
 6 A. H. Reeder to Cameron, Allentown, April 30, 1858, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 7 J. W. Forney to Cameron, n. p., May 25, 1858, Cameron Papers. 
 8 B. F. Stem to Cameron, Easton, May 31, 1858, Cameron Papers. 
 
 9 Cincinnati Gazette, July 14, 15, 1858; New York Times, July 15, 1858. 
 
 10 National Era, July 29, 1858. 
 
 11 Ibid., October 21, 1858, cites Forney's newspaper, the Philadelphia 
 Press, as claiming Pennsylvania carried by 60,000 opposition majority. 
 
 12 Tribune Almanac for 18 $8, 53; Tribune Almanac for 18 $9, 52-53. 
 
 13 Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 2; 36 Cong., 1 Sess., 1. 
 
 14 New York Times, October 14, 1858. 
 
 15 Ibid., October 14, 1858. 
 
 16 Buchanan to Wm. B. Reed, Bedford Springs, July 31, 1858, Moore, 
 Buchanan, X, 225. 
 
 17 Buchanan to Harriet Lane, Washington, October 15, 1858, Moore, 
 Buchanan, X, 229. 
 
 18 Tribune Almanac for 18 $9, 52. In presenting notice of his death 
 to the Senate, on June 21, i860, Cameron declared Schwartz had been 
 a Democrat all his life. He was an ardent supporter of Buchanan in 
 1856 and up to the advent of the Lecompton fight in Congress. Though 
 he was never in political life and constantly had refused public station 
 he was persuaded to run in opposition to Jones, the Administration 
 Lecompton candidate, and won the contest. Cong. Globe, 36 Cong., 1 
 Sess., 3214. 
 
 19 Cited in New York Times, October 19, 1858. 
 
 20 F. P. Blair to Cameron, Silver Springs, October 20, 1858, Cameron 
 Papers. Florence had received 6823 votes, John W. Ryan (Union) 6492, 
 and G. W. Nebinger (anti-Lecompton Democrat) 2442. Florence was 
 elected with a plurality of 3 3 1 votes over Ryan. His vote was 2 1 1 1 less 
 than the combined vote for Ryan and Nebinger. In 1856 he had been 
 elected with a majority of 2220. Tribune Almanac for 18 '57, 48; Tribune 
 Almanac for 1859, 5 2 ; New York Times, October 12, 14, 1858.. 
 
 21 Cameron Papers, 1858. 
 
 22 In 1858, the coalition opposing the Democratic Partv called itself 
 the Union Party, this term temporarily taking the place of the People's 
 Party. In the early stages of the evolution of the Republican Party sev- 
 eral states used the term People's Party for their organizations. 
 
 23 Hannibal Hamlin to Cameron, Hampden, November 4, 1858, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
 24 G. Dawson Coleman to Cameron, n. p., June 10, 1858, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 25 Alex Hay to Cameron, New York, October 29, 1858, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 26 A. K. McClure to Cameron, Chambersburg, October 29, 1858, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 27 Id. to id., Chambersburg, November 1, 1858, Cameron Papers. 
 
284 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 28 New York Times, January 4, 5, 1859. 
 
 29 McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 345-348. 
 
 30 New York Times, March 22, 1859; Cincinnati Gazette, March 22, 
 
 l8 59- 
 
 31 New York Times, April 13, 1859; Cincinnati Gazette, April 14, 15, 
 
 1859. 
 
 32 New York Times, May 5, 1859. 
 
 33 Cincinnati Commercial, May 5, 1859. 
 
 34 The Press article was quoted in the Cincinnati Commercial, April 
 20, 1859. 
 
 35 Cincinnati Commercial, July 2, 1859. 
 
 36 National Era, May 12, 1859. The same name, People's Party, was 
 used in Indiana by the party that became the Republican Party in 1858. 
 
 37 W. H. Boyle to Cameron, Chambersburg, July 21, 1859, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 ^National Era, October 13, 20, 1859. 
 
 39 Tribune Almanac for i860, 50; Cincinnati Commercial, October 27, 
 1859. 
 
 40 Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, quoted in the New York Times, 
 October 13, 1859. 
 
 41 Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 2 Sess., 168. 
 
 42 Cameron to W. D. Lewis, Washington, December 14, 1859, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 43 Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 2 Sess., 1556-1569. 
 
 44 On January 24, i860, Cameron had presented resolutions from the 
 legislature of Pennsylvania instructing its Senators and requesting 
 its Representatives in Congress to endeavor to procure such a modifi- 
 cation of the revenue laws as would change the mode of collection on 
 their great staples from ad valorem to speiflc duties. 
 
 45 Cong. Globe, 36 Cong., 1 Sess., 3009-3027. The Pennsylvania Tele- 
 graph, February 21, 1861, sincerely congratulated General Cameron on 
 his success, as he had been the main advocate of the bill in the Senate. 
 The next day, the Lincoln party, on the way to Washington, was in 
 Harrisburg. It was a day of celebration. In the huge parade of the day 
 there were among the flags, in the procession, some complimenting Sena- 
 tor Cameron, bearing such inscriptions as "The Tariff Bill Passed. Honor 
 to Simon Cameron" and "Cameron and the Tariff of 1861." These com- 
 pliments, declared the Pennsylvania Telegraph, February 22, 1861, "were 
 eminently due to General Cameron, who has been the steadfast friend 
 of the Protective policy, and did more than any other Senator, perhaps, 
 to secure the passage of the Tariff bill." 
 
 46 Cong. Globe, 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 102 1, 2634; 2 Sess., 1461, 1658; 36 
 Cong., 1 Sess., 711, 3059-3061. 
 
 47 Ibid., 35 Cong., 2 Sess., 1296-1298, 1459; 36 Cong., 1 Sess., 711. 
 
 48 Ibid., 35 Cong., 1 Sess., 378, 630. 
 
 49 Ibid., 36 Cong., 1 Sess., 2588. 
 
 50 Pennsylvania Telegraph, January 28, 1861. This item is based on a 
 
NOTES 285 
 
 speech of General Cameron to a group of workingmen who serenaded 
 him in Philadelphia, January 26, 1861. 
 
 51 Cong. Globe, 36 Cong., 1 Sess., 2043. 
 
 52 Ibid., 3159. President Buchanan received this Homestead Bill on 
 June 20, i860, and returned it to the Senate with his veto message two 
 days later, Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, V, 608-614; 
 Moore, Buchanan, X, 443-451. 
 
 53 Preston King to Bigelow, Ogdensburg, April 11, 1859, in Bigelow, 
 op. cit., I, 224-226. 
 
 54 New York Times, August 30, 1859; Cincinnati Commercial, August 
 11, 30, 1859. 
 
 55 A. H. Reeder to Cameron, Allentown, November 22, 1859, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
 56 C. T. Sherman to , Mansfield, Ohio, January 30, 1859, 
 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 57 Joseph H. Barrett to Cameron, Cincinnati, September 7, 1859, and 
 Joseph Casey to Joseph H. Barrett, Harrisburg, September 9, 1859, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 58 Letter to W. E. Frazer, cited in Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lin- 
 coln: Complete Works, I, 585. 
 
 59 New York Times, February 24, i860. 
 
 60 Ibid., March 2, i860. 
 
 61 Henry K. Strong to Henry C. Carey, n. p., January 23, i860, Ed- 
 ward Carey Gardiner Collection, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 62 New York Times, February 23, 24, i860; Cincinnati Commercial, 
 February 24, i860; National Era, March 1, i860; McClure, Old Time 
 Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 390-399. McClure's account of the Harrisburg 
 Convention, while inaccurate in many details, does present a fairly good 
 picture of what took place, and in general agrees with the accounts 
 presented in contemporary newspapers. His personal opposition to 
 Cameron is very evident, and his own importance in working out the 
 compromises is perhaps overdrawn. 
 
 63 McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 409-410. 
 
 64 Correspondence of Curtin and McClure with Cameron, March- 
 August, i860, Cameron Papers; Russell Errett to Cameron, Harrisburg, 
 June 23, i860, Cameron Papers. 
 
 CHAPTER X 
 
 1 National Era, January 26, i860. 
 
 2 William Larimer, Jr. to Cameron, Pittsburgh, March 10, 1855, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
 3 Cameron Papers, 1857-1860; Elihu B. Washburne Papers, i860, Li- 
 brary of Congress. The letters on this subject are too numerous to 
 itemize. 
 
 4 A. Lincoln to Cameron, New York, February 26, i860, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 5 Ante, 201-202. 
 
286 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 6 New York Times, March 2, i860. The writer has been unable to lo- 
 cate a copy of the pamphlet. 
 
 7 Jesse H. Berry to Cameron, Mill Hall, Clinton Co., Pa., March 1, 
 i860, Cameron Papers. 
 
 8 Russell Errett to Cameron, Pittsburgh, December n. d\, 1859, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 9 Id. to id., Pittsburgh, May 8, i860, with enclosures, Cameron Papers. 
 
 10 R. P. King to Cameron, Philadelphia, June 29, 1861, Cameron Papers. 
 
 11 David Wilmot to Joseph Casey, Towanda, March 10, i860, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 12 New York Times, May 16, i860. 
 
 13 E. Pershine Smith to Henry C. Carey, Rochester, March 14, i860, 
 Henry C. Carey Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 14 Chicago Herald, May 16, i860. Article bears date-line of Washing- 
 ton, May 10. 
 
 15 Pennsylvania Telegraph, May 26, i860. 
 
 16 Cincinnati Gazette, February 10, i860. 
 
 17 Joseph Casey to Cameron, Harrisburg, May 7, i860, Cameron Papers. 
 
 18 There were also those in Illinois who were not favorable to his can- 
 didacy. One declared: "Cameron might as well expect to be Emperor 
 as president. His pretentions are laughed at as they deserve." L. H. 
 Bowen to E. B. Washburne, Savanna, Illinois, May 19, i860, Elihu B. 
 Washburne Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 19 Joseph Casey to Cameron, Chicago, May 10, i860, Cameron Papers. 
 
 20 Cincinnati Commercial, May 12, 17, i860. Similar accounts appear 
 in the Cincinnati Gazette, May 12, 17, i860. 
 
 21 Cincinnati Commercial, May 15, 17, i860. Murat Halstead visited 
 all the national conventions in i860 and wrote eye-witness accounts of 
 them for the Cincinnati Commercial. Later he compiled from this cor- 
 respondence and from the official reports A History of the National 
 Political Conventions, Columbus, i860. 
 
 22 Simeon Whitely to Cameron, Decatur, May 10, i860, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 23 William S. Roland to Cameron, Briggs House, Chicago, May 16, 
 i860, Cameron Papers. 
 
 24 Elihu B. Washburne Papers for February to May, i860, Library of 
 Congress. 
 
 25 N. B. Judd to Elihu B. Washburne, Chicago, September 25, 1858, 
 Elihu B. Washburne Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 26 Ida M. Tarbell, The Life of Abraham Lincoln (New York, 191 7), 
 II, 134-135. 
 
 27 In the tariff debates during the thirty-sixth Congress their speeches 
 supplemented one another and their votes were identical. 
 
 28 New York Times, March 25, 1859. 
 
 29 Ibid., April 1, 1859; National Era, April 7, 1859; Cincinnati Com- 
 mercial, April 6, 1859. 
 
 30 William H. Seward to Thurlow Weed, Washington, April 29, 1859, 
 
NOTES 287 
 
 in Thurlow Weed Barnes, Life of Thurlow Weed (Boston, 1884), II, 
 256. Seward failed to obtain the nomination at Chicago in May of i860, 
 and although Pennsylvania's vote was cast for Lincoln rather than for 
 Seward, the relations of Cameron and Seward remained most cordial. 
 In August of i860 Cameron visited Seward at his home in Auburn, New 
 York. He was serenaded by the friends of Seward and he acknowledged 
 the recognition with a brief speech in which he alluded to the doubts 
 which he had heard expressed regarding Pennsylvania in the coming 
 election. His state had suffered under the rule of the "sham Democracy." 
 He promised a rousing majority for Lincoln and Hamlin in November. 
 Seward in response defied Pennsylvania to give a larger majority for the 
 Republican ticket than New York could roll up. New York Times, 
 August 22, i860. 
 
 31 Preston King to John Bigelow, Washington, January 16, i860, in 
 Bigelow, op. cit., I, 250. 
 
 32 E. Pershine Smith to Henry C. Carey, Rochester, February 20, 
 April 15, i860, Henry C. Carey Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 33 Wm. H. Seward to Weed, Washington, March 15, i860, in Barnes, 
 op. cit., II, 261. 
 
 34 David Wilmot to Cameron, Towanda, March 10, April 16, i860, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 35 Lyman Trumbull Papers for March to May, i860, Library of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 36 John A. Nichols to Cameron, Chicago, April 17, i860, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 37 Chicago Herald, May 16, i860. 
 
 38 Thurlow Weed to Cameron, Albany, May 7, 1 860, Cameron Papers. 
 
 39 Philadelphia Press, May 14, 16, 17, i860. 
 
 40 The week before the Chicago Convention the Democratic National 
 Convention at Charleston had adjourned after fruitless efforts to agree 
 on a nomination. 
 
 41 Philadelphia Press, May 17, i860; New York Times, May 16, i860; 
 Cincinnati Commercial, May 18, i860; McClure, Old Time Notes of 
 Pennsylvania, I, 404-405. 
 
 42 Thaddeus Stevens' choice was McLean. He felt that the conservative 
 opposition could be disarmed by the nomination of McLean and a vig- 
 orous young Republican could be nominated as a running-mate and 
 thus insure a larger national vote. Stevens voted for Cameron and after 
 the first ballot transferred his vote to Lincoln (post., 217). Samuel W. 
 McCall, Thaddeus Stevens, American Statesman (Boston, 1909), 112; 
 Woodburn, Thaddeus Stevens, 151; Alexander K. McClure, Recollections 
 of Half a Century (Salem, 1902), 419. 
 
 43 McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 405-406; Frank B. 
 Carpenter, "How Lincoln Was Nominated," Century Magazine, XXIV 
 (October, 1882), 885-886. 
 
 44 Halstead, op. cit., 142. 
 
 45 Ibid., 138-139; Stanwood, op. cit., 291-294; Chicago Herald, May 
 
288 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 17, 18, i860. Kleeberg, op. cit., 60-82, presents a good, brief, secondary 
 account of the Chicago Convention; Curtis, op. cit., 352-360, presents a 
 brief summary of the convention which is rather inadequate. 
 
 46 Charles Roll, "Indiana's Part in the Nomination of Abraham Lin- 
 coln for President in i860," Indiana Magazine of History, XXV (March, 
 1929), 5. 
 
 47 Boston Daily Atlas, quoted in Roll, "Indiana's Part in the Nomi- 
 nation of Abraham Lincoln for President in i860," loc cit., 2. 
 
 48 Carpenter, "How Lincoln Was Nominated," loc. cit., 854-855; 
 Thomas H. Dudley, "The Inside Facts of Lincoln's Nomination," Cen- 
 tury Magazine (July, 1890), XL, 477. 
 
 49 Two of these were Cameron men, while Mann was anti-Cameron. 
 
 50 Dudley, op. cit., 478. 
 31 Ibid., 478. 
 
 r,L> McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 407-408; Alexander 
 K. McClure, Lincoln and Men of War Times (Philadelphia, 1892), 153; 
 M. M. Gresham, Life of Walter Q. Gresham (Chicago, 19 19), II, 565; 
 Ward Hill Lamon, The Life of Abraham Lincoln (Boston, 1872), 449; 
 Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln: The War Years, II, 341-342. This agree- 
 ment seems to have been made in the face of Lincoln's command that 
 he should not be bound by any contracts and McClure (Lincoln and 
 Men of War Times, 153) states that "this agreement was not made 
 known at the time to any in the delegation, nor did it become known 
 to Lincoln, at least as a positive obligation, until after the election." 
 
 53 Barnes, op. cit., II, 292. 
 
 54 Halstead, op. cit., 143-144; Cincinnati Commercial, May 21, i860. 
 
 55 Halstead, op. cit., 144; Chicago Herald, May 19, i860. 
 
 56 Chicago Herald, May 19, i860; New York Times, May 19, i860; 
 Philadelphia Press, May 19, i860; and Halstead, op. cit., 146-148, 151- 
 153, contain an analytical summary of the ballots for both president and 
 vice president. 
 
 57 Halstead, op. cit., 143. 
 
 58 Ida M. Tarbell, Life of Abraham Lincoln (New York, 1917), II, 149. 
 
 59 Halstead, op. cit., 147-148; Chicago Herald, May 19, i860; Cincin- 
 nati Commercial, May 21, i860. 
 
 60 Halstead, op. cit., 148-149; Horace Greeley, Re collections of a Busy 
 Life (New York, 1868), 391; Chicago Herald, May 19, i860; Cincinnati 
 Commercial, May 21, i860. The Indianapolis Daily Journal, May 25, 
 1 860, attributed the nomination to "the unanimity of the Indiana delega- 
 tion for Lincoln." 
 
 61 P. Orman Ray, The Convention That Nominated Lincoln (Chicago, 
 1916), 28. This is an address delivered before the Chicago Historical 
 Society on May 18, 1916; Harold Joseph Laski, The American Presi- 
 dency (New York, 1940), 8-9. 
 
 62 Halstead, op. cit., 151-153; Chicago Herald, May 19, i860; Phila- 
 delphia Press, May 19, i860. 
 
 63 Philadelphia Press, May 19, i860. 
 
NOTES 289 
 
 04 John S. Bobbs to Cameron, Indianapolis, May 19, i860, Cameron 
 Papers. Dr. Bobbs was a brother-in-law of Simon Cameron. His wife was 
 Catherine Maria Cameron. 
 
 65 Philadelphia Press, May 20, i860. 
 
 66 Pennsylvania Telegraph, May 21, i860. 
 
 157 Russell Errett to Simon Cameron, Pittsburgh, May 29, i860, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
 68 Pennsylvania Telegraph, May 26, i860. Rather full reports of Cam- 
 eron's speech with a brief account of the meeting may also be found in 
 the New York Times, May 28, i860, and in the Indianapolis Journal, 
 May 28, i860. 
 
 69 A. K. McClure to Cameron, Philadelphia, June 1, 6, i860, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 70 David Wilmot to Cameron, Towanda, July 28, i860, Cameron Pa- 
 pers. 
 
 71 Lincoln to Trumbull, Springfield, May 26, i860, in Gilbert A. Tracy, 
 Uncollected Letters of Abraham Lincoln, (Boston, 191 7), 148; William 
 Lambert, ed., "A Lincoln Correspondence," Century Magazine, LXXVII, 
 No. 4 (February, 1909), 625. 
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 
 1 E. Pershine Smith to Henry C. Carey, Albany, June 17, i860, Henry 
 C. Carey Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 2 J. P. Sanderson to Cameron, n. p., October 1, i860, Cameron Papers. 
 Sanderson stated also that McClure had Stevens in New York to back 
 him up in pleas for money for Pennsylvania elections. He had baited 
 Stevens for the Senate, and Stevens was surreptitiously digging Cam- 
 eron by representing him as desiring Curtin's defeat. 
 
 8 Cameron to Col. Henry Fisher, Lochiel, October 24, i860, Auto- 
 graph Collection, Simon Cameron, Hist. Soc. of Pa.; A. Cummings to 
 Cameron, New York, October 30, i860, Cameron Papers. 
 
 4 A. K. McClure to Carl Schurz, Philadelphia, September 6, i860, 
 Carl Schurz Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 5 Quoted in Indiana State Sentinel, October 5, i860. 
 
 6 Blaine, op. cit., I, 205-206. 
 
 I Tribune Almanac for 1861, 47-48; New York Times, October 12, 
 i860; Philadelphia Inquirer, October 13, i860. 
 
 8 Cameron, of this party, still had two years remaining of his term. 
 Bigler's term was about to expire and he would be replaced by a Re- 
 publican. If Cameron should resign to enter the Cabinet, as was expected, 
 another Republican would be chosen to succeed him. 
 
 9 Smith to Carey, Rochester, October 14, i860, Henry C. Carey Papers, 
 Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 10 McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 436-437. 
 
 II John G. Nicolay to Lyman Trumbull, Springfield, June 5, i860, 
 Lyman Trumbull Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 12 Cameron to Lincoln, Harrisburg, August 1, i860, Cameron Papers. 
 
2 9 o SIMON CAMERON 
 
 13 Lincoln to Cameron, Springfield, August 6, i860, Cameron Papers. 
 
 14 Osborn Hamiline Oldroyd, Lincoln's Campaign — or The Political 
 Revolution of i860 (Chicago, 1896), 139-140. 
 
 15 Stanwood, op. cit., 297. 
 
 16 These statements are based upon the reading of a vast number of 
 letters, principally the following, from the Cameron Papers: Wilmot to 
 Cameron, Towanda, October 26, i860; Edgar Cowan to Cameron, 
 Greensburg, December 15, i860; J. K. Moorhead to Cameron, Pittsburgh, 
 November 12, and Philadelphia, January 4, 5, 1861; A. H. Reeder to 
 Cameron, Easton, December 22, i860, Harrisburg, January 2, 1861; 
 Thomas A. Scott to Cameron, n. p., January 6, 1861. 
 
 17 New York Times, January 5, 7, 1861. 
 
 18 Ibid., January 8, 1861. 
 
 19 Ibid., January 9, 1861. 
 
 20 J. P. Sanderson to Cameron, Harrisburgh, January 8, 1861, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 21 B. Rush Petrikin to Cameron, Lock Haven, January 11, 1861, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
 22 Philadelphia Inquirer, March 14, 1861; New York Times, March 
 13, 15, 1861. 
 
 23 Richardson, op. cit., V, 626-653, delivered to Congress on December 
 3, i860. 
 
 24 A. H. Reeder to Cameron, Harrisburg, January 2, 1861, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 25 Cong. Globe, 36 Cong., 2 Sess., 489. 
 
 26 Ibid., 114. 
 
 27 Pennsylvania Telegraph, January 28, 1861; Philadelphia Press., Jan- 
 uary 31, 1861. 
 
 28 Cong. Globe, 36 Cong., 2 Sess., 489-493. 
 
 29 Ibid., 36 Cong., 2 Sess., 494-496. 
 
 30 Ibid., 36 Cong., 2 Sess., 496. 
 
 31 Benjamin Champness to Cameron, n. p., December 12, i860, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
 32 A notable exception was found to exist in west-central Pennsylvania. 
 Russell Errett noted in Pittsburgh a sentiment of fierce opposition to 
 anything that looked like compromise. Russell Errett to Cameron, Pitts- 
 burgh, January 23, 1861, Cameron Papers. 
 
 33 J. H. Benjamin and others to Cameron, Harrisburgh, January 23, 
 1 86 1, Cameron Papers. 
 
 34 D. K. Jackson to Cameron, Harrisburg, January 22, 1861, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 35 Wm. M. Piatt to Cameron, Tuckhannock, January 29, 1861, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
 36 G. W. Cass to Cameron, Pittsburgh, January 22, 1861, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 37 Samuel Colver to Cameron, Independence, February 11, 1861, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
NOTES 291 
 
 38 Saterlee Clark to Cameron, Horicon, Wisconsin, January 30, 1861, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 39 Richard McCrea to Cameron, Richmond, Virginia, n. d., Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 40 John D. Kellogg to Cameron, New York City, February 2, 4, 1861, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 41 George Fort Milton, The Eve of Conflict (Boston, 1934), 519-536, 
 570. 
 
 42 Isaac G. CorTman to Cameron, Phoenixville, February 26, 1861, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 43 W. A. Passavant, Pittsburgh, December 4, i860; James McKay, 
 Shippensburg, December 27, i860; N. Ewing, Uniontown, December 
 
 27, i860; W. H. Cobb, New York, December 28, i860, Cameron Papers. 
 
 44 A. H. Reeder to Cameron, Allentown, January 11, 1861, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 45 D. J. Hoober to Cameron, Philadelphia, February 1, 1861, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 46 William F. Small to Cameron, Philadelphia, January 28, 1861, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
 47 Cong. Globe, 36 Cong., 2 Sess., 487. 
 
 48 Edward A. Pollard, Life of Jefferson Davis, with a Secret History 
 of the Confederacy (Philadelphia, 1869), 82-84. 
 
 49 This anecdote was handed down by Cameron to his grandchildren, 
 one of whom, Mrs. Eliza Cameron Bradley, related it to the writer. 
 
 50 Horace White to Lyman Trumbull, Chicago, December 30, i860, 
 Lyman Trumbull Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 51 Horace White to Elihu B. Washburne, Chicago, December 30, i860, 
 Elihu B. Washburne Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 52 James G. Randall, "The Civil War Re-studied," Journal of Southern 
 History, VI (November, 1940), 454-455. 
 
 53 Philadelphia Press, May 21, i860. 
 
 54 R. G. White to Cameron, Wellsboro, Pa., May 22, i860, and Stephen 
 Miller to Cameron, St. Cloud, Minn., May 27, i860, Cameron Papers, are 
 cases in point. 
 
 55 David Wilmot to Cameron, Towanda, July 28, i860, Cameron Pa- 
 pers. 
 
 M McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 408. 
 
 57 Paul McClelland Angle, Lincoln, 1854-1861 (Springfield, 1933), 
 361. Angle cites this letter from the New York Tribune of November 
 
 28, i860. 
 
 58 B. Rush Petrikin to Cameron, Lock Haven, December 10, i860, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 59 Cameron to B. Rush Petrikin, Washington, December 11, i860, 
 Cameron Papers. 
 
 60 Edgar Cowan to Cameron, Greensburg, December 15, i860, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
 61 Lincoln to Hamlin, cited on page 235, and Hamlin to Lyman Trum- 
 
292 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 bull, Hampden, December 27, i860, Lyman Trumbull Papers, Library 
 of Congress. 
 
 62 Two telegrams, Leonard Swett to Cameron or Casey, Chicago, De- 
 cember 26, i860, Cameron Papers. 
 
 63 Leonard Swett to Cameron, n. p., December 28, i860, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 64 Angle, op. cit., 366. 
 
 65 Lincoln to Cameron, Springfield, December 31, i860, Cameron Pa- 
 pers; Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, I, 662-663. 
 
 66 Philadelphia Press, January 2, 1861. This notice bears the date-line 
 of Harrisburg, January 1, 1861. 
 
 67 McClure, Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, I, 408; McClure, Lin- 
 coln and Men of War Times, 154. 
 
 68 Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, I, 663. This 
 letter, though printed in numerous secondary works, is not among the 
 Cameron Papers. Presumably it was returned to Lincoln in accordance 
 with his request of January 13, 1861, see post, 238. 
 
 69 New York Times, January 5, 1861. 
 
 70 Ibid., January 5, 1861; Cincinnati Gazette, January 5, 1861. 
 
 71 The Cameron Papers, November, i860, to March, 1861, contain 
 copies of many of these documents. Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln, 
 Prairie Years (New York, 1926), II, 398, estimates that the volume of 
 witnesses and recommendations for Cameron outnumbered that of the 
 opposition three to one. 
 
 72 Angle, op. cit., 367; New York Times, January 12, 14, 1861. 
 
 73 Lincoln to Cameron, Springfield, January 13, 1861, Cameron Pa- 
 pers; Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, I, 665. 
 The letter was marked ^Private and Confidential." 
 
 74 Lincoln to Cameron, Springfield, pre-dated January 3, 1861, Cam- 
 eron Papers; Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, I, 
 66 5 -666. 
 
 75 Cameron Papers for December, i860, January and February, 1861. 
 One of the strong telegrams to Lincoln on the policy of protection 
 was sent from Philadelphia on January 13, by A. H. Reeder. It was short 
 and to the point: "Pennsylvania knows that the Republican Party is 
 pledged to a tariff Administriation. Her vote was largely based on that 
 pledge, and the best man could not have stood a moment upon any other 
 ground. The redemption of that pledge is expected in the Secretary of 
 the Treasury. Cameron is her champion and representative man on 
 that question. His selection would be regarded as the redemption of that 
 pledge, and his rejection would be eminently disastrous to the party." 
 
 76 Philadelphia Inquirer, February 5, 9, 22, 1861. 
 
 77 Pennsylvania Telegraph, January 7, 1861. 
 
 78 Ibid., January 21, 30, 1861. 
 
 79 Ralph Ray Fahrney, Horace Greeley and the Tribune (Cedar 
 Rapids, 1936), 68. 
 
NOTES 293 
 
 80 James H. Van Alen to Lyman Trumbull, n. p., January 8, 1861, 
 Lyman Trumbull Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 81 Thomas J. McCormack, ed., Memoirs of Gustave Koerner, 18 09- iS '96 
 (Cedar Rapids, 1909), II, 114. 
 
 82 Quoted in Lamon, op. cit., 460-461. 
 
 83 Horace White, The Life of Lyman Trumbull (Boston, 191 3), 145- 
 146. 
 
 84 Ibid., 145; Tracy, op. cit., 173-174. 
 
 85 Report of a statement made by Lincoln to a group supporting 
 Cameron who visited him in Springfield. This report was published in 
 the Philadelphia Sunday Mercury and reprinted in the Chicago Tribune. 
 Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln, Prairie Years, II, 402-404. 
 
 86 Albert Shaw, Abraham Lincoln (New York, 1929), II, 218. 
 
 87 Lamon, op. cit., 461. 
 
 88 New York Times, February 4, 1861; McClure, Old Time Notes of 
 Pennsylvania, I, 452; William Larimer to Cameron, Pittsburgh, February 
 6, 1 86 1, and M. B. Lowry to Cameron, Erie, February 16, 1861, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 89 David Davis to Cameron, Bloomington, February 8, 1861, Cameron 
 Papers. 
 
 90 John N. Purviance to Cameron, Pittsburgh, February 15, 1861, 
 Cameron Papers. Davis, being one of the negotiators at Chicago, prob- 
 ably felt that he was "on the spot." It is easy to believe that he urged 
 Lincoln to appoint Cameron. 
 
 91 James Milliken to Cameron, Philadelphia, February 19, 1861, Cam- 
 eron Papers. 
 
 92 Three fairly full reports of this interview were made to Cameron 
 and are among the Cameron Papers: James Milliken to Cameron, Phila- 
 delphia, February 22, 1861; J. T. Coffee to Cameron, Harrisburg, Feb- 
 ruary 22, 1 861; Samuel A. Purviance to Cameron, Harrisburg, February 
 23, 1861. 
 
 93 New York Times, February 27, 1861. 
 
 94 Ante, 197-198. 
 
 95 New York World, March 1, 1861; New York Times, March 2, 1861; 
 Pennsylvania Telegraph, March 2, 1861; Cincinnati Gazette, March 2, 
 4, 1 861; Philadelphia Inquirer, March 4, 1861. 
 
 96 Meneely, op. cit., 74; New York Times, March 6, 1861; Cincinnati 
 Gazette, March 8, 1861. 
 
 97 R. B. Spink to Cameron, Wooster, March 8, 1861, Cameron Papers. 
 
 98 Meneely, op. cit., 84-85. 
 
 99 William A. Dunning, "The Second Birth of the Republican Party," 
 American Historical Review, XVI (October, 1910), 56-58. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Manuscript Material 
 
 James Buchanan Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania. 
 
 James Buchanan Papers, Division of Manuscripts, Library of Congress. 
 
 Simon Cameron Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 
 Simon Cameron Papers, Archives Division, Pennsylvania State Library. 
 
 Simon Cameron Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 Simon Cameron Papers, Miscellaneous material now in the hands of 
 
 sundry members of the Cameron family. 
 Henry C. Carey Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 Lewis S. Coryell Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 Ferdinand J. Dreer Collection, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 Frank M. Etting Papers, Administrations, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 John W. Forney Papers, Library of Congress. 
 Edward Carey Gardiner Collection, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 Autograph Collection of Simon Gratz, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 George W. Harris Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 Records of the Interior Department, National Archives. 
 Andrew Jackson Papers, Library of Congress. 
 Joshua Stoddard Johnston Papers, Hist. Soc. of Pa. 
 Benson J. Lossing, "Autograph of Simon Cameron," [n. dj. Original 
 
 bound manuscript now in the possession of James M. Cameron, Har- 
 
 risburg, Pennsylvania. 
 James K. Polk Papers, Library of Congress. 
 George N. Sanders Papers, Library of Congress. 
 Carl Schurz Papers, Library of Congress. 
 Lyman Trumbull Papers, Library of Congress. 
 Martin Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress. 
 Elihu B. Washburne Papers, Library of Congress. 
 
 Public Documents 
 
 Congressional Globe. 
 
 House of Representatives Executive Document, Number 229. 
 
 House Journals. 
 
 Pennsylvania Archives, Third Series: Provincial Papers. 
 
 Pennsylvania Archives, Fourth Series: Papers of the Governors. 
 
 Senate Journals. 
 
 Statutes at Large and Treaties of the United States. 
 
298 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Published Letters, Papers and Diaries 
 
 Boucher, Chauncey S., and Brooks, Robert P., eds., "Correspondence 
 Addressed to John C. Calhoun, 183 7- 1849," American Historical As- 
 sociation, Report, 1929. 
 
 Jamison, J. Franklin, ed., "Correspondence of John C. Calhoun," Amer- 
 ican Historical Association, Report, 1899. 
 
 Lambert, William, ed., "A. Lincoln Correspondence," Century Magazine, 
 February, 1909. 
 
 Moore, John Bassett, ed., The Works of James Buchanan, 12 vols., 
 Philadelphia, 1908. 
 
 Nicolay, John G., and Hay, John, Abraham Lincoln — Complete Works, 
 2 vols., New York, 1894. 
 
 Proceedings of the First Three Republican National Conventions of 
 18 56, i860 and 1864, Minneapolis, 1883. 
 
 Quaife, Milo M., ed., The Diary of James K. Polk, 4 vols., Chicago, 19 10. 
 
 Richardson, James D., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the 
 Presidents, 1789-1897, 10 vols., Washington, 1896- 1899. 
 
 Sioussat, St. George L., ed., "The Letters of James K. Polk to Andrew 
 J. Donelson, 1843-1848," Tennessee Historical Magazine, March, 191 7. 
 
 Sioussat, St. George L., ed., "Papers of Major John P. Heiss," Tennessee 
 Historical Magazine, June, September, 1916. 
 
 Tracy, Gilbert A., ed., Uncollected Letters of Abraham Lincoln, Boston, 
 1917. 
 
 Welles, Edgar T., ed., Diary of Gideon Welles, 3 vols., New York, 191 1. 
 
 Autobiographies and Reminiscences 
 
 Barnes, Thurlow Weed, Memoirs of Thurlow Weed, Boston, 1884. Sup- 
 plementary volume to Autobiography of Thurlow Weed. 
 
 Benton, Thomas Hart, Thirty Years View, 2 vols., New York, 1854- 
 1856. 
 
 Bigelow, John, Retrospections of an Active Life, 5 vols., New York, 
 1909-1913. 
 
 Blaine, James G., Twenty Years in Congress, 2 vols., Norwich, 1884- 1886. 
 
 Greeley, Horace, Recollections of a Busy Life, New York, 1868. 
 
 McClure, Alexander K., Old Time Notes of Pennsylvania, 2 vols., Phila- 
 delphia, 1905. 
 
 McClure, Alexander K., Recollections of Half a Century, Salem, 1902. 
 
 McCormack, Thomas J., ed., Memoirs of Gustave Koerner, 1809-1896 2 
 vols., Cedar Rapids, 1909. 
 
 Riddle, Albert Gallatin, Recollections of War Times, New York, 1895. 
 
 Biographies 
 
 Angle, Paul McClelland, Lincoln, 1854-1861, Springfield, 1933. 
 Curtis, George Ticknor, Life of James Buchanan, 2 vols., New York, 
 1883. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 299 
 
 Dodd, William E., Jefferson Davis, Philadelphia, 1907. 
 
 Dunbar, Rowland, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist, 10 vols., Jackson, 
 
 1923. 
 Fahrney, Ralph Ray, Horace Greeley and the Tribune, Cedar Rapids, 
 
 1936. 
 Fuess, Cloud Moore, Daniel Webster, 2 vols., Boston, 1930. 
 Going, Charles Buxton, David Wilmot, Free-Soiler, New York, 1924. 
 Gresham, Matilda McG., Life of Walter Q. Gresham, 1832-189$, 2 vols., 
 
 Chicago, 1 919. 
 Hammond, Jabez D., Life and Times of Silas Wright, Syracuse, 1848. 
 Harris, Wilmer C, The Public Life of Zachariah Chandler, 1851-1875, 
 
 Lansing, 191 7. 
 Hunt, Gaillard, Israel, Elihu, and Cadwallader Washburne, New York, 
 
 1925. 
 Johnston, Richard M., and Browne, William H., Life of Alexander H. 
 
 Stephens, Philadelphia, 1878. 
 Konkle, Burton Alva, Life and Speeches of Thomas Williams, 2 vols., 
 
 Philadelphia, 1905. 
 Lamon, Ward Hill, The Life of Abraham Lincoln, Boston, 1872. 
 McCall, Samuel W., Thaddeus Stevens, A?nerican Statesman, Boston, 
 
 1909. 
 McClure, Alexander K., Abraham Lincoln and Men of War Times, 
 
 Philadelphia, 1892. 
 McCormac, Eugene Irwin, James K. Polk, Berkeley, 1922. 
 Meyer, Leland W., The Life and Times of Colonel Richard M. Johnson 
 
 of Kentucky, New York, 1932. 
 Milton, George Fort, The Eve of Conflict: Stephen A. Douglas and the 
 
 Needless War, Boston, 1934. 
 Moore, Edward B., Glances at the Life and Public Services of Gen. 
 
 Simon Cameron, Harrisburg, n. d. 
 Nevins, Allan, Fremont, Pathmarker of the West, New York, 1939. 
 Nevins, Allan, Fremont, the West's Greatest Adventurer, 2 vols., New 
 
 York, 1928. 
 Pollard, Edward A., Life of Jefferson Davis with a Secret History of the 
 
 Confederacy, Philadelphia, 1869. 
 Riddle, Albert Gallatin, Life of Benjamin F. Wade, Cleveland, 1886. 
 Sandburg, Carl, Abraham Lincoln, Prairie Years, 2 vols., New York, 
 
 1926. 
 Sandburg, Carl, Abraham Lincoln: The War Years, 4 vols., New York, 
 
 1939. 
 Schurz, Carl, Life of Henry Clay, 2 vols., New York, 1899. 
 Shaw, Albert, Abraham Lincoln, 2 vols., New York, 1929. 
 Smith, William E., The Francis Preston Blair Family in Politics, 2 vols., 
 
 New York, 1933. 
 Tarbell, Ida M., The Life of Abraham Lincoln, 4 vols., New York, 191 7. 
 Tyler, Lyon Gardiner, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, 2 vols., 
 
 Richmond, 1884- 1885. 
 
3 oo SIMON CAMERON 
 
 White, Horace, Life of Lyman Trumbull, Boston, 191 3. 
 Woodburn, James A., Life of Thaddeus Stevens, Indianapolis, 191 3. 
 
 Special Articles and Histories 
 
 Bartlett, Marguerite G., The Chief Phases of Pennsylvania Politics in 
 the Jacksonian Period, Allentown, 19 19. 
 
 Bartlett, Ruhl Jacob, John C. Fremont and the Republican Party, Co- 
 lumbus, 1930. 
 
 Bemis, Samuel Flagg, A Diplo?natic History of the United States, New 
 York, 1936. 
 
 Blankenburg, Rudolph, "Forty Years in the Wilderness, or Masters and 
 Rulers," The Arena, January, 1905. 
 
 Buley, Roscoe Carlyle, "The Political Balance in the Old Northwest, 
 1 820- 1 860," Studies in American History Inscribed to James Albert 
 Woodburn, Bloomington, 1926. 
 
 Carpenter, Frank B., "How Lincoln Was Nominated," Century Maga- 
 zine, October, 1882. 
 
 Crandall, Wallace, Early History of the Republican Party, Boston, 1930. 
 
 Curtis, Francis, The Republican Party, 2 vols., New York, 1904. 
 
 Davis, W. W. H., History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Doylestown, 
 1876. 
 
 Dudley, Thomas H., "The Inside Facts of Lincoln's Nomination," 
 Century Magazine, July, 1890. 
 
 Dunning, William A., "The Second Birth of the Republican Party," 
 American Historical Review, October, 19 10. 
 
 Ellis, Franklin, and Evans, Samuel, History of Lancaster County, Penn- 
 sylvania, Philadelphia, 1883. 
 
 Errett, Russell, "The Republican National Conventions of 1856 and 
 i860," Magazine of Western History, July, 1889. 
 
 Garrison, George Pierce, Western Extension, New York, 1906, vol. 
 XVII of The American Nation, edited by Albert B. Hart. 
 
 Green, Fletcher M., "Duff Green: Industrial Promoter," Journal of 
 Southern History, February, 1936. 
 
 Hailperin, Herman, "Pro-Jackson Sentiment in Pennsylvania, 1820- 1828," 
 Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, L (1926), No. 3. 
 
 Halstead, Murat, Caucuses of i860 — A History of the National Political 
 Conventions, Columbus, i860. 
 
 Julian, George W., "The First Republican National Convention," Amer- 
 ican Historical Review, January, 1899. 
 
 Keifer, Joseph Warren, Slavery and Four Years of War, 2 vols., New 
 York, 1900. 
 
 Kelker, Luther Reily, History of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, 3 vols., 
 New York, 1907. 
 
 Kleeberg, Gordon S. P., The Formation of the Republican Party as a 
 National Organization, New York, 191 1. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 301 
 
 Laski, Harold Joseph, The American Presidency, An Interpretation, 
 New York, 1940. 
 
 Lynch, William O., "Anti-Slavery Tendencies of the Democratic Party 
 in the Northwest from the Election of General Taylor to the Crisis 
 of 1850," Mississippi Valley Historical Review, December, 1924. 
 
 Lynch, William O., "Zachary Taylor as President," Journal of Southern 
 History, August, 1938. 
 
 McCarthy, Charles, "The Antimasonic Party," American Historical As- 
 sociation, Annual Report, 1902, I. 
 
 McClure, Alexander K., Our Presidents and How We Make Them, New 
 York, 1900. 
 
 MacKenzie, Alexander, History of the Camerons, Inverness, 1884. 
 
 Martin, Asa Earl, and Shenk, Hiram Herr, eds., Pennsylvania History 
 Told by Contemporaries, New York, 1925. 
 
 Meneely, A. Howard, "Simon Cameron," Dictionary of American Biog- 
 raphy. 
 
 Meneely, A. Howard, The War Department, 1861, New York, 1928. 
 
 Nichols, Roy F., "George Mifflin Dallas," Dictionary of American 
 Biography. 
 
 Nichols, Roy F., "John Wein Forney," Dictionary of American Biog- 
 raphy. 
 
 Oldroyd, Osborn Hamiline, Lincoln's Ca?npaign — or The Political Rev- 
 olution of i860, Chicago, 1896. 
 
 Randall, James G., "The Civil War Re-studied," Journal of Southern 
 History, November, 1940. 
 
 Ray, P. Orman, The Convention That Nominated Lincoln, Chicago, 
 1916. 
 
 Roll, Charles, "Indiana's Part in the Nomination of Abraham Lincoln 
 for President in i860," Indiana Magazine of History, March, 1929. 
 
 Schafer, Joseph, A History of the Pacific Northwest, New York, 19 18. 
 
 Schafer, Joseph, "British Attitude toward the Oregon Question," Amer- 
 ican Historical Review, January, 191 1. 
 
 Smith, Justin H., The Annexation of Texas, New York, 191 1. 
 
 Stanwood, Edward, A History of the Presidency from 1788 to 1897, 
 Boston, 1898. 
 
 Street, Ida M., "The Simon Cameron Indian Commission of 1838," 
 Annals of Iowa, July and October, 1905. 
 
 Taussig, Frank W., The Tariff History of the United States, sixth edi- 
 tion, New York, 1905. 
 
 Wilder, Damtl W., The Annals of Kansas, Topeka, 1875. 
 
 Wilson, Henry, History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in 
 America, 3 vols., Boston, 1872- 1877. 
 
 Woodburn, James A., Political Parties and Party Problems in the United 
 States, third edition, New York, 1924. 
 
3 o2 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 General Histories 
 
 Channing, Edward, A History of the United States, 6 vols., New York, 
 
 1905-1936. 
 Dunaway, Wayland Fuller, A History of Pennsylvania, New York, 1935. 
 Egle, William H., History of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
 
 Philadelphia, 1883. 
 Godcharles, Frederic Antes, Pennsylvania; Political, Governmental, 
 
 Military and Civil, 5 vols., New York, 1934. 
 Hoist, Hermann Eduard von, The Constitutional and Political History 
 
 of the United States, 8 vols., Chicago, 1 881- 1892. 
 McMaster, John Bach, A History of the People of the United States, 
 
 8 vols., New York, 1883-192 1. 
 Rhodes, James Ford, History of the United States from the Compro- 
 mise of 1 8 so, 8 vols., New York, 1893- 19 14. 
 Schouler, James, History of the United States of America under the 
 
 Constitution, 7 vols., New York, 1894- 191 3. 
 
 Reference Works 
 
 The American Almanac, Boston, 1 830-1 861. 
 
 American Newspapers, 1821-1936, A Union List of Files Available in 
 
 the United States and Canada, New York, 1937. 
 Annotated Catalogue of Newspaper Files, Pennsylvania State Library, 
 
 Harrisburg, n. d. 
 Biographical Directory of American Congresses, 17*14.-192-1, Washington, 
 
 1928. 
 Biographical Encyclopedia of Dauphin County, Chambersburg, 1896. 
 Dictionary of American Biography, 20 vols., New York, 1928- 1936. 
 Dictionary of American History, 5 vols., New York, 1940. 
 Encyclopedia of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, 1932. 
 Pennsylvania German Pioneers, Norristown, 1934, Ralph Beaver Strass- 
 
 burger, compiler, and John William Hinke, editor. 
 The Tribune Almanac, New York, 1838- 19 14. 
 
 Newspapers 
 
 Chicago Herald 
 Cincinnati Gazette 
 Cincinnati Commercial 
 Harrisburg Chronicle 
 Harrisburg Democratic Union 
 Indiana State Sentinal 
 Indianapolis Daily Journal 
 The Keystone, Harrisburg 
 Lewisburg (Pa.) Chronicle 
 National Era 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 303 
 
 National Intelligencer 
 New York Herald 
 New York Times 
 New York Tribune 
 New York World 
 Niles' Weekly Register 
 Pennsylvania Intelligencer 
 Pennsylvania Reporter 
 Pennsylvania Telegraph 
 P ennsylvanian 
 
 Philadelphia American Sentinel 
 Philadelphia Evening Bulletin 
 Philadelphia Inquirer 
 Philadelphia North American 
 Philadelphia Public Ledger 
 Philadelphia Press 
 Pittsburgh Gazette 
 Washington Globe 
 Washington Union 
 
 Periodicals 
 
 American Historical Association, Annual Reports. 
 
 American Historical Review. 
 
 Annals of Iowa. 
 
 The Arena. 
 
 Century Magazine. 
 
 Indiana Magazine of History. 
 
 Journal of Southern History. 
 
 Magazine of Western History. 
 
 Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 
 
 Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. 
 
 Tennessee Historical Magazine. 
 
INDEX 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abolitionists, 55 
 
 Adams, Charles Francis, 104 
 
 Adams, John Quincy, 15, 16 
 
 "Address to the Democracy of 
 Pennsylvania," 61, 91, 260 
 
 "Address to the People of Pennsyl- 
 vania," 156 
 
 Allen, William, 64 
 
 "American" party, see Know- 
 Nothings 
 
 "American System," 54 
 
 Anderson, James M., 120 
 
 Andrew, John A., 214 
 
 Annals of Congress, 5 
 
 Anti-Lecompton State Convention, 
 177 
 
 Anti-Lecomptonites, 172, 177, 186, 
 187, 189, 194 
 
 Antimasons, 15, 18, 19, 29 
 
 Archer, W. S., 272 
 
 Army Bill, 182 
 
 Ashmun, George, 213 
 
 Aspinwall, William H., 89 
 
 Bailey, Gamaliel, 147, 148 
 
 Baldwin, Matthew, 8 
 
 Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 92, 
 
 93 
 
 Baltimore Conventions: 183 1, 251; 
 
 1832, 19-21; 1835, 29-30; 1844, 
 
 45-51; 1848, 102-103; 1852, 127, 
 
 130 
 Baltimore Patriot, 262 
 Bancroft, George, 84 
 Bank of Middletown, 10, 12, 64, 65, 
 
 67, 112, 175, 249, 255, 256, 269 
 Banks, John, 44, 260 
 Banks, Nathaniel P., 151 
 Barbour, Philip P., 20 
 Barnburner Democrats, 104, 131- 
 
 132 
 
 "Barnburners," 104, 267 
 
 Barrett, Joseph H., 200 
 
 Bartlett, Marguerite G., 251 
 
 Bates, Edward, 200, 204, 206, 208, 
 211, 213, 217 
 
 Bell, John, 139, 282 
 
 Benjamin, J. H., 231 
 
 Benjamin, Judah P., 169 
 
 Benton, Thomas Hart, 63, 265 
 
 Bibb, George M., 64 
 
 Biddle, Nicholas, 249 
 
 Bigelow, John, 247 
 
 Bigler, Samuel S., 117, 119, 122 
 
 Bigler, William, 114, 116, 117, 118, 
 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 128, 
 136, 137, 138, 149, 160, 169, 170, 
 188, 191, 197, 198, 201, 228, 229, 
 273, 289 
 
 Birney, James G., 55 
 
 Black, Jeremiah S., 116, 135, 136, 
 
 137* l 7h 2 74 
 
 Black, Samuel W., 116, 120 
 
 Black Republicans, 157, 194 
 
 Blaine, James G., 106, 262, 264 
 
 Blair, Francis P., 63, 64, 6$, 67, 150, 
 152, 154, 155, 100, 191 
 
 Blair, Francis P., Jr., 217 
 
 Blair County Whig, 107 
 
 Blanchard, John, 71 
 
 Blankenburg, Rudolph, 255 
 
 Bobbs, John S., 218, 289 
 
 Boilvin, Nicholas, 36 
 
 Bonsall, Benjamin J., 23, 25 
 
 Borgre, 2 
 
 Boston, Atlas, 153, 214 
 
 Boyle, W. H., 195 
 
 Bradley, Mrs. W. H. (Eliza Mc- 
 Cormick Cameron), granddaugh- 
 ter of Simon, 269, 291 
 
 Breckinridge, John C, 151, 178, 225 
 
 Bright, Jesse D., 130 
 
308 
 
 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Broderick, Daniel C, 282 
 
 Brodhead, Daniel M M 36, 37, 38, 39, 
 40, 140 
 
 Brodhead, Richard, 71, 108, 116, 
 126, 145, 150, 159, 269 
 
 Brooks, George M., 40 
 
 Brooks, Preston, 178 
 
 Brua, Margaretta, wife of Simon, 3 
 
 Buchanan, James, 12; 13; became 
 follower of Jackson, 16; elected 
 to House of Representatives in 
 1820, 22; appointed Minister to 
 Russia, 22; 23; elected to Senate 
 in 1834, 24; 25; 26; 28; 29; 30; 
 32; 33; 41; 43; 44; 45; refused 
 Pennsylvania's offer of support 
 for presidential nomination, 47- 
 48; conditionally accepted offer, 
 48-49; 55; 56; appointed Secre- 
 tary of State, 57-58; 60; 61; 62; 
 67; 69; 80; 81; 82; 88; 91; 94; 
 95; 96; 98; 99; 102; 103; 106; 108; 
 109; 121; 123; 124; 125; 126; 127; 
 128; 129; 130; 132; 133; 134; nom- 
 inated for presidency in 1856, 
 
 15 1 ;, *5 2 ; J 53; 154; 155; elected 
 
 President, 156-157; 159; 160; 166; 
 
 169; 170; 171; 172; 177; 181; 182; 
 
 186; 188; 190; 191; 193; 194; 195; 
 
 199; 227; 228; 234; 256; 258; 259; 
 
 260; 262; 264; 271; 280; 283; 285 
 Buckalew, Charles R., 142, 145 
 Bucks County Democrat, 4 
 Bucks County Messenger, 4 
 "Buckshot War," 32, 131 
 Buffalo Convention, 104 
 Bull Run, Battle of, 268 
 Burnside, James, 122 
 Bush, Pennsylvania politician, 144 
 Butler, Andrew Pickens, 170 
 Butler, Benjamin F., 49, 51 
 Butler, William O., 103 
 Byerly, William, 127 
 
 Calhoun, John C, 5, 6, 15, 16, 19, 
 
 21, 63, 67, 68, 82, 176 
 Cameron, Catherine Maria, sister of 
 
 Simon, m, 289 
 Cameron Charles, father of Simon, 
 
 2 > 3 
 
 Cameron, Donald, 2 
 
 Cameron, Donald, the Gentle 
 Lochiel, 2, 247 
 
 Cameron, Eliza, sister of Simon, 1 1 1 
 
 Cameron, Sir Ewen, Lord of 
 Lochiel, 2 
 
 Cameron, James, brother of Simon, 
 100, no, in, 268 
 
 Cameron, James Donald, son of 
 Simon, 2, in, 112, 113, 164, 172, 
 269 
 
 Cameron, James M., grandson of 
 Simon, 248 
 
 Cameron, John, brother of Simon, 
 3 
 
 Cameron, John, great-uncle of Si- 
 mon, 2 
 
 Cameron, Rebecca, wife of James, 
 1 1 1 
 
 Cameron, Simon, passim, and 
 especially as noted below: ap- 
 praisal by McClure, 1 ; character- 
 istics, 1, 10, 15, 171; ancestry, 2; 
 education, 3; apprenticed to 
 printer, 3; newspaper editor, 5-7; 
 advocate of high tariff, ^-6, 15; 
 appointment as adjutant general 
 of Pennsylvania, 6; canal con- 
 struction and allied interests, 8- 
 10; entered banking business, 10; 
 development of railroads, 12-14; 
 Miscellaneous business enter- 
 prises, 14; supported Jackson, 17, 
 19; delegate to Baltimore Con- 
 vention, 19-21; appointed official 
 visitor to West Point, 21, 251; in- 
 spected New England industries, 
 22; sought appointment as Gov- 
 ernor of Michigan Territory, 25; 
 supported Muhlenberg, 27-30; 
 urged Presidtnt to appoint Penn- 
 sylvanians, 30; was appointed 
 commissioner to settle Winneba- 
 go Claims, 32-34, 254; nominated 
 
INDEX 
 
 309 
 
 for Congress by Democratic dis- 
 trict meeting, 33; settlement of 
 Winnebago Indian Claims, 34-41, 
 43, 139, 239; opposition to aboli- 
 tion, 42-43; opposed nomination 
 of Van Buren in 1844, 45-51; 
 favored nomination of Johnson 
 in 1844, 45-46, before turning 
 support to Buchanan, 47-49; sup- 
 ported party rather than candi- 
 date in 1844, 52-55; united pro- 
 tectionist Democrats, Native 
 Americans, and Whigs to gain 
 Senatorship in 1845, 59-60; oppo- 
 sition from defeated branch of 
 Democratic party, 61-62; estab- 
 lishment of Washington Union, 
 63-68; opposed Polk's tariff pol- 
 icy, 69-70, 72-76, 82; Oregon 
 question, 77-79; opposed Polk's 
 appointments of Woodward and 
 Horn, 80-82; Mexican War,83-87; 
 moderate views on slavery, 85- 
 86; sponsored bills favoring sold- 
 iers, 87; scuffle with Foote in 
 Senate, 90; state and national pol- 
 itics, 91-108; interest in naval af- 
 fairs, no; business interests, 111- 
 112; railroad development, 113; 
 failed to gain Senatorship, 114- 
 116; state election of 1851, 114- 
 122, 126-127; presidential contest 
 of 1852, 123-132; consolidating 
 personal political following, 134- 
 137, 146; legislature failed to 
 elect in Senatorial contest of 
 
 1855, 138-146; indignation meet- 
 ings in Easton and Pittsburgh, 
 143-144; presidential election of 
 
 1856, 151-152, 154-157; sources of 
 support for Senatorship in 1857, 
 158-164; Forney's villification of, 
 160- 161; election to Senate, 164- 
 165; editorial opinion on election 
 of, 165-167; right to seat ques- 
 tioned and upheld upon re-entry 
 to Senate, 168-170; contrasted 
 
 with Buchanan, 171- 172; sup- 
 ported Wilmot for governorship, 
 173-174; Kansas question, 176- 
 181, 227-228; Chandler-Wade- 
 Cameron compact, 178-179; 
 paired with Davis, 179; abhorred 
 institution of slavery, 181- 182; 
 remedy suggested to petitioners 
 for Congressional relief, 183-184; 
 urged protectionism upon Re- 
 publicans, 185-186; advised Reed- 
 er on state politics, 187; aided in 
 repudiation of Buchanan admin- 
 istration in 1858 elections, 188- 
 189; suggested for presidency, 
 192, 200, 204-205; prevented Mc- 
 Clure's election to speakership 
 of legislature, 192-193; opposed 
 Administration financial policy, 
 197-198; opposed governmental 
 waste, 198-199; urged govern- 
 ment aid for telegraph and rail- 
 roads, 199; favored homesteads 
 for actual settlers, 199-200; Penn- 
 sylvania delegates instructed for, 
 202; unable to control State Cen- 
 tral Committee, 202-203; never 
 optimistic concerning own nom- 
 ination, 206-207; adherents' ac- 
 tivities before and during Chi- 
 cago Convention, 207-218; en- 
 tertained Seward at Harrisburg, 
 209; the "deal" between Lincoln 
 and Cameron managers, 215-216, 
 234, 242; gave hearty endorse- 
 ment to convention's candidates, 
 219-220; declared Pennsylvania 
 safe for Lincoln, 224; approved 
 Lincoln's attitude concerning 
 tariff, 224; labored for mutual 
 spirit of union and conciliation 
 between North and South, 228- 
 232; bade farewell to Jefferson 
 Davis, 233; pressure for Cabinet 
 post, 234-242; visited Lincoln at 
 Springfield, 236; was offered 
 Cabinet post, 236; Lincoln sought 
 
3 io 
 
 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 declination of offer, 236-238; edi- 
 torial comment on Cabinet post, 
 239; was appointed Secretary of 
 War, 242; was appointed Minis- 
 ter to Russia, 243, 250, 254; "Old 
 Winnebago," 255; visited Seward 
 in Auburn, 287 
 
 Cameron, Simon, grandfather of 
 the subject of this work, 2 
 
 Cameron, William, brother of Si- 
 mon, 3, 279 
 
 Cameron, William Brua, son of 
 Simon, 88 
 
 Cameron clan, 2 
 
 "Cameron Road," 14 
 
 Campbell, James, 107, 122, 126, 132, 
 
 i33, i34, 273i 2 7 6 
 
 Carey, Henry C, 185, 186, 201, 223 
 
 Cartter, D. X., 217, 218 
 
 Casey, Joseph, 200, 206, 207, 219 
 
 Cass, George Washington, 231 
 
 Cass, Lewis, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 
 68, 103, 104, 105, 106, 123, 124, 
 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 133, 
 267 
 
 Central Railroad, 93 
 
 Champness, Benjamin, 231 
 
 Chandler- Wade-Cameron com- 
 pact, 178 
 
 Chandler, Zachariah, 178 
 
 Channing, Edward, 16 
 
 Charles Edward, the Young Pre- 
 tender, 2 
 
 Charleston Convention, 211, 287 
 
 Chase, E. B., 134, 138, 143 
 
 Chase, Salmon P., 156, 204, 211, 218, 
 242 
 
 Chicago Convention, 204-221, 287, 
 288 
 
 Chicago Herald, 206, 210 
 
 Chicago Press and Tribune, 216, 
 
 2 34, 2 93 t 
 Christ, Benjamin, 138, 139 
 Cincinnati Commercial, 194, 208, 
 
 213. 2 43 
 Cincinnati Convention, 1856, 151 
 Cincinnati Gazette, 125, 142, 200, 
 
 205, 207, 274, 277 
 Civil War, 8, 14, no 
 Clark, Saterlee, 232 
 Clay, Cassius M., 218 
 Clay, Henry, 15, 16, 47, 52, 53, 54, 
 
 101, 103, 131, 251 
 Clayton, John M., 104, 108 
 Coleman, C. Dawson, 192 
 Collamer, Jacob, 282 
 Collan, James, 127 
 Columbia County Democrat, 239 
 Colver, Samuel, 231 
 Commonwealth Insurance Com 
 
 pany, 113 
 Congressional Globe, 90, 263 
 Conrad, R. I., 136 
 Conscience Whigs, 104 
 Constitution, 63, 66 
 Convention of 1818, 77 
 Convention of 1827, 78-79 
 Cooper, James, 41, 107, 108, 114, 
 
 139, 141, 149, 200, 260, 274 
 Corwin, Thomas, 68 
 Coryell, Lewis S., 60, 61, 66, 134, 
 
 139 
 Covode, John, 201, 282 
 Cowan, Edgar, 225, 226, 235, 238 
 Crawford, T. Hartley, 35, 36, 38, 
 
 4 1 
 Crawford, William H., 16 
 
 Crittenden, John J., 228, 229, 282 
 
 Crittenden Compromise, 228-232 
 
 Culloden, Battle of, 2 
 
 Cumberland Valley Railroad, 8 
 
 Cummings, Alexander B., 124, 126, 
 
 215 
 Curry, Thomas, 249 
 Curtin, Andrew G., 141, 201, 202, 
 
 203, 207, 218, 220, 223, 224, 226, 
 
 236, 241, 289 
 
 Dallas, George M., 20, 22, 30, 51, 
 58, 61, 62, 68, 73, 74, 75, 102, 103, 
 108, 260, 262, 263 
 
 Davis, David, 214, 215, 224, 235, 
 M 1 . 2 93 
 
INDEX 
 
 311 
 
 Davis, Jefferson, 106, 123, 179, 197, 
 
 2 33i 2 7* 
 Davis, John, 85 
 Dawson, John L., 133, 186 
 Dayton, William L., 152, 204, 211, 
 
 214, 215, 217 
 Delaware Indians, 3 
 Democratic National Conventions: 
 1832, 19-21; 1835, 29-30; 1844, 45- 
 
 51; 1848, 102-103; 1852, 130; 1856, 
 
 Democratic Republicans, 15, 19 
 Democrats, 4, 5, 29, 31, 32, 44, 45, 
 46, 52, 53, 55, $6, 57, 58, 61, 62, 
 64, 67, 69, 77, 79, 82, 83, 91, 92, 
 
 93* 94i 95> 9 6 » 97> 9 8 i 99. I( >o, IOI > 
 
 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 114, 
 
 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 
 
 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 
 
 134, 136, 137, 138, 140, 142, 144, 
 
 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 
 
 154, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 
 
 165, 166, 168, 172, 174, 175, 177, 
 
 178, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 187, 
 
 189, 191, I93, I94, I95, I96, 200, 
 
 20I, 208, 211, 223, 225, 227, 229, 
 
 23O, 23I, 232, 257, 269, 27O, 273, 
 274, 275, 276, 279, 282, 283 
 
 Dickinson, Daniel S., 130 
 
 Dix, John A., 18, 68 
 
 Dock, William, 101, 119, 122 
 
 Dodd, W. E., 51 
 
 Dodge, Henry, 36, 38 
 
 Donaldson, W., 23 
 
 Donegal Church, 2 
 
 Donelson, Andrew J., 64, 67, 151, 
 
 261 
 Douglas, Stephen A., 129, 151, 176, 
 
 191, 194, 207, 208, 225, 281, 282 
 Doylestown Democrat, 4 
 Dred Scott Case, 173, 228 
 Dudley, Thomas, 214, 215, 217 
 Dunn, John G, 127, 143 
 Dupp, H. S., 113 
 
 Easton Argus, 21, 144 
 Eaton, John H., 9, 22 
 
 Ebough, A., 118 
 
 Elder, Thomas, m 
 
 Elections, national: 1824, 15-17; 
 
 1832, 19-21; 1836, 30; 1844, 55; 
 
 1846, 93-94; 1848, 100, 104-105; 
 
 1852, 132; 1856, 152, 155-157, 189; 
 
 1858, 189-191; state: 1835, 25-29; 
 
 1842, 43-44; 1844, 57; 1845, 91-92; 
 
 1846, 93-94; 1847, 97-98; 1848, 99- 
 
 100, 105; 1850, 114; 1851, 114-121; 
 
 1852, 131; 1854, 140; 1855, 149; 
 
 1856, 153-155; 1857, 174; 1858, 
 
 189-191; 1859, 196, 201; i860, 223; 
 
 of United States Senators from 
 
 Pennsylvania: 1834, 24; 1843, 44; 
 
 1845, 58-60; 1849, 106-108; 1 85 1, 
 
 114-116; 1856, 149; 1857, 164-165; 
 
 1861, 225-226 
 English, William H., 180 
 English Compromise, 180, 181, 188, 
 
 282 
 Erie Canal, 7 
 Errett, Russell, 203, 205, 206, 219, 
 
 290 
 Evarts, William M., 216, 218 
 Executive Document No. 229, 39, 
 
 254 
 
 Federalist, 15 
 
 "Fifty-four forty or fight," 77 
 
 Fillmore, Millard, 103, 108, 129, 
 151, 154, 156, 157, 272 
 
 Finney, Pennsylvania politician, 
 207 
 
 Flanigan, I. R., 206 
 
 Fleming, John, Jr., 40, 41 
 
 Florence, Thomas B., 191, 283 
 
 Floyd, John B., 234 
 
 Foote, Henry S., 00, 265, 271 
 
 Forney, John W., 43, 61, 98, 124, 
 143, 154, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 
 165, 166, 167, 168, 172, 173, 177, 
 187, 193, 194, 256, 262, 270, 280, 
 
 283 
 
 Fort Crawford, 40 
 Foster, Henry D., 71, 116, 161, 162, 
 165, 201, 223, 226, 262 
 
3^ 
 
 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Fourth of July celebration, 68, 91 
 Fox, Pennsylvania politician, 144 
 Fox Indians, 36 
 Frazer, Reah, 97, 135 
 Frazer, William E., 188, 189 
 Free-Soil Mass State Convention, 
 
 136 
 Free-Soil National Convention, 104 
 Free-Soil Party, 137 
 Frelinghuysen, Theodore, 52 
 Fremont, John C, 151, 152, 153, 
 
 154, 156, 157, 159 
 Freylinghuysen, Frederick T., 215 
 Frost, Wesley, 187, 189 
 Fry, Major, 144 
 Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, 121, 
 
 123, 140 
 Fuller, Henry M., 141 
 Fullweiler, Samuel, 13 
 
 Getz, J. Lawrence, 164 
 Gorrecht, W. Frank, 253 
 Gosport Navy Yard, no 
 Grant, Ulysses S., 244 
 Gratz, David, 249, 268, 269 
 Gratz, Edward, 249, 268, 269 
 Gratz, Simon, 12, 249 
 Greeley, Horace, 152, 208, 213 
 Green, DufT, no, 268 
 Green, James S., 177, 178 
 Grier, Robert C, 81, 264 
 Grow, Galusha A., 177 
 Grund, Francis J., 134 
 
 Hale, James T., 202 
 Hale, John P., 182, 233 
 Halstead, Murat, 208, 213, 286 
 Hamilton, A. Boyd, 117 
 Hamilton, George P., 115, 124 
 Hamlin, Hannibal, 191, 218, 220, 
 
 221, 235, 287 
 Harlin, James, 182 
 Harris, George W., 249 
 Harris, William A., 66 
 Harrisburg and Lancaster Railroad, 
 
 8, 12 
 Harrisburg Argus, 87, 263 
 
 Harrisburg Bank, 11 
 
 Harrisburg Conventions: 1824, 16; 
 1832, 17, 20; 1835, 26-27; l8 3 8 > 3M 
 1844, 46; 1849, 126; 1852, 128; 
 1854, 135-136; 1855, 276; 1856, 
 
 153; l8 57> *73; l8 5 8 > *77> i 8 6-i87, 
 188; 1859, 193; i860, 201-202, 205, 
 206, 285 
 Harrisburg Democratic Union, 262 
 Harrisburg Independent Whig, 138 
 Harrisburg Patriot and Union, 167 
 Harrisburg Reporter, 248 
 Harrisburg Republican, 4, 5, 6 
 Harrisburg Telegraph, 200 
 Harrisburg Union, 57, 134, 136 
 Harrison, William Henry, 30, 45 
 Hazelhurst, Isaac, 173, 174 
 Heck, Dr. 121, 122 
 Heiss, John P., 63, 65, 66, 67, 261 
 Hemphill, William J., 115 
 Hickman, John, 193 
 Hill, William, 248 
 Hirst, Pennsylvania politician, 128 
 Hitchcock, E. A., 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 
 
 2 54 
 Hoffman, W. W., 249 
 Holt, Joseph, 234, 242 
 Homestead Bill, 199, 285 
 Hoober, D. J., 233 
 Hopkins, William, 131 
 Horn, Henry, 81, 82 
 Howard, C, 14 
 Hughes, F. W., 118, 119, 122 
 Hugus, Isaac W., 273 
 "Hunkers," 267 
 Hunter, Robert M. T., 197 
 Hutter, William H., 144 
 
 Indianapolis Daily Journal, 288 
 
 Ingham, Samuel D., 4, 21 
 
 Inverness, 2 
 
 Irvin, James 95, 97, 98 
 
 Ives, Timothy, 158, 277 
 
 Jackson, Andrew, 6, 15, 16, 18, 19, 
 
 23, 25, 26, 30, 45, 64, 6$, 67, 154, 
 199, 248, 250, 251, 268 
 
INDEX 
 
 3*3 
 
 Jackson, D. K., 231 
 
 Jarnagin, Spencer, 73, 74 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, 15, 268 
 
 Jessup, William, 188 
 
 Johnson, Pennsylvania politician, 
 
 144 
 Johnson, Andrew, 228 
 Johnson, O. F., 30 
 Johnson, Reverdy, 68 
 Johnson, Richard M., 20, 29, 45, 
 
 46, 47* 50 
 Johnston, Joshua Stoddard, 249 
 Johnston, William Freame, 99, 100, 
 
 115, 120, 121, 147, 151, 269, 276 
 Jones, J. Glancy, 117, 124, 135, 188, 
 
 190, 283 
 Jones, J. Prengle, 142, 143 
 Jordan, J., 144 
 
 Judd, Norman B., 204, 208, 214, 217 
 Julian, George W., 150 
 
 Kane. John K., 53, 55, 139, 140 
 
 Kane letter, 53, 55, 70, 105, 262 
 
 Kansas-Nebraska Act, 134, 136, 137, 
 138, 140, 147, 150, 152, 175, 273 
 
 Kansas-Nebraska question, 138 
 
 Kansas question, 1 76-181, 227-228, 
 280 
 
 Keitt, Lawrence M., 177 
 
 Kellogg, John D., 232 
 
 Keystone, 126, 129 
 
 Kidder, Luther, 124, 125, 135 
 
 King, Horatio, 67 
 
 King, Preston, 200, 209 
 
 King, R. P., 206 
 
 King, William R., 123, 271 
 
 Kirpatrick, John M., 140, 274 
 
 "Kitchen Cabinet," 19 
 
 Knepley, John, 31 
 
 Know-Nothing National Conven- 
 tion, 1856, 155 
 
 Know-Nothings, 59, 60, 62, 92, 93, 
 
 138. 140, 141, 142, 144, 147, 149, 
 151, 153, 157, 162, 166, 173, 180, 
 182, 194, 212, 259, 260, 274, 276, 
 282 
 
 Koerner, Gustave, 239 
 
 Kraus, David, 6 
 Kunkel, John C, 121. 
 
 159 
 
 Lancaster Convention, 1851, 120 
 Lancaster Intelligencer, 43 
 Lancaster Intelligencer and Journal, 
 
 126 
 Lancastrian, 126, 129, 135 
 Lane, Harriet, 190 
 Lane, Henry S., 212 
 Larimer, William, Jr., 145, 204 
 Lawrence, William C, 192, 193 
 Lebanon Valley Railroad, 113 
 Lebo, William B., 162, 163, 164, 
 
 166, 167, 168 
 Lecompton Constitution, 176, 177, 
 
 179, 180, 181, 186, 187, 228, 283 
 "Lecompton swindle," 179, 281 
 Lewis, Dixon H., 72, 73, 85, 176 
 Lewis, Ellis, 173 
 Lewis, Joseph L., 173 
 Lewis, W. B., 19 
 Lewis, W. D., 183 
 Lewisburg, 3 
 Lewisburg Chronicle, 77 
 Lewistown Convention, 27-28 
 Liberty men, 104 
 Lincoln, Abraham, 168, 191, 200, 
 
 204, 205, 208, 210, 111, 213, 215, 
 
 216, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 
 
 225, 226, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 
 
 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 284, 
 
 287, 288, 292, 293 
 Linton, J., 249 
 "Little Dutchman," see Martin 
 
 Van Buren 
 Livermore, Samuel, 249 
 Lochiel, Lord of, see Sir Ewen 
 
 Cameron 
 Lochiel, the Gentle, see Donald 
 
 Cameron 
 Lockwood, J. H., 40 
 London Times, 247 
 Long, G. R., 118 
 Longstreth, Morris, 99 
 Lowry, M. B., 201, 202 
 
3*4 
 
 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 McCalmot, Mr., 143 
 
 McCandless, W., 103 
 
 McClean, Moses, 70, 71 
 
 McClellan, George B., 244 
 
 McClernand, J. S., 168 
 
 McClure, Alexander K., 1, 59, 69, 
 141, 155, 163, 192, 193, 195, 202, 
 203, 207, 219, 220, 222, 225, 235, 
 236, 237, 238, 240, 241, 279, 285, 
 288, 289 
 
 McCord, Philadelphia businessman, 
 
 9 
 McCormick, Henry, 114 
 McCrea, Richard, 232 
 McDonald, writer for London 
 
 Times, 247 
 McKay, James J., 70 
 McKean, Samuel, 21, 22 
 McLean, John, 152, 204, 206, 208, 
 
 213, 218, 287 
 McMicheal, Martin, 241 
 
 Madisonian, 63, 6$ 
 
 "Magician," the, see Martin Van 
 
 Buren 
 Manear, Samuel B., 162, 163, 164, 
 
 166, 167 
 Mangum, W. P., 68 
 Mann, William B., 196, 207, 208, 
 
 214, 219, 288 
 March, Ephraim, 215 
 Marcy, William L., 129 
 Markle, Joseph, 57, 97 
 Mar pie's Tavern, 4 
 Marshall, Humphrey, 282 
 Mason, James M., 230 
 Mason, John Y., no 
 Mauch Chunk Railway, 12 
 Maytown, 2 
 
 MehafTy, A., no 
 Meneely, A. Howard, 243 
 Meredith, William 108 
 Mexican War, 83-87, 135 
 Michigan Territory, 25 
 Middletown, 8, 10, 14, 23, 112 
 Mifflin, Benjamin, 4 
 Milliken, James, 241 
 
 Millward, William, 173 
 
 Milton, George Fort, 232 
 
 Miners' journal, 167 
 
 Mish, business associate of Camer- 
 on, 248 
 
 Mississippi Valley, 9 
 
 Missouri Compromise, 85, 96, 124, 
 135, 140, 228, 271 
 
 Monroe, James, 5 
 
 Montgomery, William, 180 
 
 Montrose Democrat, 134, 143 
 
 Moorhead, J. K., 133, 225 
 
 Morgan, E. D., 153, 155 
 
 Mormons, 182 
 
 Morris, Edward Jay, 149, 282 
 
 Mott, Henry, 136, 138, 274 
 
 Mo wry, Charles, 5, 6 
 
 Muhlenberg, Henry A., 98, 135 
 
 Muhlenberg, Henry Augustus Phil- 
 ip, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 46, 55, 
 56, 253, 257 
 
 Muhlenberg, H. E., 146 
 
 Murray, James, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 
 39, 40, 41 
 
 National Conventions, see under 
 
 party names 
 National Era, 141, 147, 188 
 National Intelligencer, 5 
 National Republicans, 19 
 Native Americans, see Know- 
 
 Nothings 
 Nebinger, G. W., 283 
 Nebraska Bill, see Kansas-Nebraska 
 
 Act 
 "Needless War," 232 
 New Orleans Canal, 9, no, 249 
 New York Courier and Enquirer, 
 
 60 
 New York Herald, 192, 194, 205, 
 
 222 
 New York Times, 124, 142, 189, 
 
 209, 234, 241 
 New York Tribune, 88, 98, 105, 
 
 120, 121, 125, 128, 130, 166, 208, 
 
 213, 239, 266 
 Nichols, John A., 210 
 
INDEX 
 
 3i5 
 
 Nicholson, Thomas, 149 
 N iles' Register, 47, 100 
 North Alabamian, 258 
 Northern Central Railroad, 14, 113 
 Northumberland, 3 
 Northumberland Bank, 279 
 Northumberland County Gazette, 
 3 
 
 Ordinance of 1787, 79, 95 
 
 Oregon, re-occupation of, 52; con- 
 vention abrogated, 70, 78-79; 
 question, 77-79; Treaty, 79, 88; 
 territorial government, 79 
 
 O'Sullivan, I. L., 50 
 
 Packer, William F., 173, 174, 176, 
 
 193, 194 
 Palatines, 3 
 Panic of 1837, 10, 11 
 Panic of 1857, 113-114, 175, 182 
 Parker, J. A., 134, 273 
 Party platforms, Democratic: 1844, 
 
 52, 69; 1856, 152; Whig, 1844, 52; 
 
 Republican, 1856, 152 
 Peacock, James, 4 
 Penn, William, 95 
 Penniman, E. A., 115, 116 
 Pennsylvania Canal, 7 
 Pennsylvania Intelligencer, 4, 5, 6, 
 
 16, 248 
 Pennsylvania Railroad, 8, 14, 265 
 Pennsylvania Reporter, 6, 10, 17, 
 
 248 
 Pennsylvania Telegraph, 90, 105, 
 
 166, 167, 206, 219, 239, 263 
 Pennsylvanian, 28, 124, 125, 133, 
 
 160, 167 
 Penrose, Boies, 2 
 Penrose, Charles B., 162 
 People's Party, see Republicans 
 Petrikin, B. Rush, 226, 227, 235 
 Pettis, S. Newton, 217 
 Pfoutz, Conrad, 3 
 Pfoutz, Hans Michel, 3, 248 
 Pfoutz, Martha, mother of Simon, 
 
 2 < 3 
 
 Pfoutz Valley, 3 
 
 Philadelphia American Sentinel, 28, 
 
 30, 263 
 Philadelphia and Reading Railroad, 
 
 1*3 
 
 Philadelphia Conventions: 1848, 
 
 103; 1855, 147; 1856, 151-152 
 Philadelphia Daily News, 206 
 Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, 131, 
 
 136, 166, 190, 206, 277 
 Philadelphia Inquirer, 239 
 Philadelphia North American, 166 
 Philadelphia Press, 172, 193, 194, 
 
 218, 219, 234, 236 
 Philadelphia Public Ledger, 90, 100, 
 
 134, 159, 161, 165, 166, 263 
 Philadelphia Record, 239 
 Philadelphia Sunday Mercury, 293 
 Piatt, William M., 231 
 Pickens, F. W., 63, 67 
 Pierce, Franklin, 130, 132, 137, 151, 
 
 273. 275 
 Pittsburgh Chronicle, 166, 263 
 Pittsburgh Commercial, 166 
 Pittsburgh Convention, 1856, 148, 
 
 150 
 Pittsburgh Gazette, 148, 174, 205, 
 
 206 
 Plitt, George, 99 
 Plummer, Arnold, 149 
 Plutarch's Lives, 3 
 Poinsett, Joel R., 30, 37, 38 
 Polk, James K., 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 
 
 57, 64, 67, 69, 70, 75, 77, 78, 80, 
 
 81, 82, 83, 84, 101, 106, 107, 154, 
 
 170, 171, 260, 261, 264 
 Polk's Diary, 64, 81 
 Pollock, James, 136, 137, 145, 146, 
 
 149, 175^273, 275 
 Portage Railroad, 7, 8 
 Porter, David R., 31, 32, 42, 44, 98, 
 
 132, 143, 253 
 Porter, George B., 25 
 Porter, William A., 187, 190 
 Pottsville Emporium and Press, 1 29 
 Prairie du Chien, 14, 34, 35, 36, 37, 
 
 38, 39, 40, 41, 254, 255 
 
3 i6 
 
 Pritchette, K., 143 
 Pugh, George E., 170, 282 
 Purviance, John N., 241 
 Purviance, Samuel A., 214, 224 
 
 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Quay, Matthew, 2 
 Quiggle, J. C, 280 
 Quiggle, James, W., 
 
 280 
 
 Rahn, George, 138 
 
 Raleigh letter, 47, 258 
 
 Rambo, Peter, 127 
 
 Randolph, John, 22 
 
 Read, John M., 80, 188, 189, 264 
 
 Reading Convention, 1851, 119, 120, 
 
 124, 25, 126 
 Reed William B., 190 
 Reeder, Andrew H., 180, 187, 188, 
 
 200, 214, 217, 225, 228, 232, 292 
 Reily, Luther, 33, 34 
 Republican National Convention, 
 
 1856, 151-152 
 
 Republicans, 42, 67, 137, 148, 151, 
 152, 153, 154, 157, 158, 162, 166, 
 172, 173, 174, 177, 180, 181, 182, 
 183, 186, 187, 189, 191, 194, 195, 
 196, 200, 201, 202, 204, 209, 210, 
 211, 212, 213, 219, 223, 225, 226, 
 227, 229, 232, 233, 243, 277, 281, 
 282, 283, 284, 287, 289, 292 
 
 Richmond Enquirer, 63 
 
 Riddle, Albert G., 32, 253 
 
 Ritchie, Thomas, 63, 64, 65, 66, 
 67, 261 
 
 Ritner, Joseph, 18, 23, 28, 29, 31, 
 
 Rives, John C, 63, 65, 67 
 Rockafellow, John O., 113 
 Rogers, William T., 4 
 Roosevelt, Mrs. James J., 48 
 Rosenthal, Philadelphia editor, 137 
 Rush, Richard, 29 
 Russia, 243, 247, 250, 254 
 Ryan, John, 283 
 Sac Indians, 36 
 Sandburg, Carl, 19 
 
 Sanderson, George, 117 
 Sanderson, J. P., 157, 215, 222, 226, 
 
 238, 289 
 Saratoga Springs, 76 
 Saulsbury, Willard, 230, 231 
 Saunders, R. M., 49 
 Schurz, Carl, 54, 222 
 Schwartz, John, 190, 283 
 "Scotch Rebels," 3 
 Scotland, 2 
 Scott, John, 128 
 Scott, Thomas A., 8 
 Scott, Winfield, 103, 129, 132, 251, 
 
 2 7 2 
 
 Searight, William, 131 
 
 Second United States Bank, 12, 13, 
 M9, 251 
 
 Senate Journal, 263 
 
 Sergeant, John, 107 
 
 Seventh of March Speech, 129 
 
 Sevier, Ambrose H., 72 
 
 Seward, William H., 182, 185, 186, 
 191, 194, 197, 200, 204, 207, 208, 
 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216, 
 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 247, 287 
 
 Shawnee Indians, 3 
 
 Sherman, John, 194 
 
 Shoemaker, H. F., 168 
 
 Shoemaker, Henry Wharton, 280 
 
 Shoemaker, John W., 168 
 
 Shulze, J. Andrew, 6, 9, 17, 18, 43 
 
 Shunk, Francis R., 56, 57, 95, 97, 
 98, 99, 102, 103, 257 
 
 Siegfried, proprietor of Bucks 
 
 County Messenger prior to 182 1, 4 
 
 Simmons, James F., 282 
 
 Sioussat, St. George L., 260 
 
 Sioux Indians, 35 
 
 Slavery, 42-43, 181-182 
 
 Slidell, John, 83 
 
 Small, William F., 233 
 
 Smith, Caleb B., 214 
 
 Smith, Pershine, 209, 223 
 
 Smith, Truman, 156 
 
 Smuller, George, 112 
 
 Snyder, John, 10 1 
 
 Spink, R. B., 243 
 
INDEX 
 
 3i7 
 
 Stambaugh, S. C, 6, 248 
 Star of the West, 232 
 Stephens, Alexander H., 177 
 Stevens, Thaddeus, 32, 107, 108, 
 
 138, 159, 225, 227, 253, 254, 287, 
 
 289 
 Stokes, William A., 186 
 Strasburg, 3 
 Street, Ida M., 39 
 Street, Joseph M., 36, 37, 38, 39, 
 
 40, 254 
 Street, Thomas P., 39, 40 
 Strickland, Nimrod, 133, 173 
 Strong, Henry K., 201 
 Strong, William, 173 
 Stuart, Charles E., 282 
 Sturgeon, Daniel, 68, 114 
 Summer, Charles, 178 
 Sunbury American, 55, 239 
 Sunbury and Erie Railroad, 249 
 Susquehanna Railroad, 1 1 3 
 Sutherland, Joel Barlow, 27 
 Swett, Leonard, 215, 216, 235, 236, 
 
 238 
 
 Taggart, David, 159, 162, 164, 188, 
 
 201, 278, 279 
 Tariff Act of 1824, 16 
 Tariff issue in Campaign of i860, 
 
 "3 
 
 Tariff of 1842, 53, 54, 70, 71, 72, 
 73, 93, 258, 262 
 
 Tariff of 1846, 69, 70, 75, 76, 105, 
 106, in, 182, 263 
 
 Tariff of 1861, 242, 284 
 
 Taylor, Zachary, 83, 84, 98, 100, 
 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 267 
 
 Telegraph, 258 
 
 Texas, annexation of, 47, 52, 70, 83 
 
 "The New York Highlanders," 268 
 
 "The Simon Cameron Indian Com- 
 mission of 1838," 39 
 
 Thompson, James, 71 
 
 Thompson, Richard W., 282 
 
 Tibbatts, J. W., 49 
 
 "To the Public," 142 
 
 Transcontinental railroads, 89, 199 
 
 Treaty of 18 19, 77 
 
 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, 87, 
 
 Trist, Nicholas P., 87 
 Trumbull, Lyman, 210, 234, 240 
 Two-thirds rule, 49, 50, 103 
 Tyler, John, 63, 65, 67, 68 
 Tyler, Thomas, 1 1 7 
 
 Ulysses of the Highlands, 2 
 
 Union Canal, 8, 89, 112 
 
 Union State Convention, 153, 155- 
 
 .56 
 
 United States Telegraph, 268 
 Utah Territory, 182 
 
 Van Alen, James H., 239 
 
 Van Buren, Martin, 12, 19, 20, 21, 
 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 
 32, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 
 102, 104, 105, 255, 267 
 
 Veech, James, 173, 275 
 
 Wade, Benjamin F., 178, 200, 221 
 Wagonseller, G. A., 162, 163, 164, 
 
 166, 167, 279 
 Walker, J. Knox, 66 
 Walker, Robert J., 49, 53, 64, 6$, 
 
 70, 82, 106, 176, 262 
 Walker Tariff, see Tariff of 1846 
 War Department, 1861, The, 243 
 Ward, John E., 151 
 Washburne, Elihu B., 208, 234 
 Washburne, Israel, 148 
 Washington Globe, 45, 63, 64, 65, 
 
 66, 67, 68, 260 
 
 Washington Union, 63, 64, 65, 66, 
 
 67, 97, 102, 120, 172, 248, 260, 
 261, 270 
 
 Watts, C, 249 
 
 Webb, J. W., 152 
 
 Webster, Daniel, 68, 73, 103, 129, 
 
 272 
 Weed, Thurlow, 154, 155, 157, 170, 
 
 204, 209, 2 to, 211, 278 
 Welsh, Hem,, 58 
 Welsh, William, 227 
 
3 i8 
 
 SIMON CAMERON 
 
 Westcott, James D., 82 
 
 Weston, Stephen, 117 
 
 "Wheatland," 108 
 
 Whig Almanac , 274 
 
 Whig National Conventions: 1848, 
 103; 1852, 130 
 
 Whigs, 15, 29, 32, 44, 45, 52, 53, 
 55, 57> 59. 62, 69, 91, 92, 93, 94, 
 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 
 105, 107, 114, 115, 116, 120, 121, 
 
 Williamson, Passmore, 149 
 
 Wilmot, David, 71, 84, 93, 94, 135, 
 136, 137, 138, 142, 143, 150, 152, 
 154, 158, 173, 174, 205, 206, 210, 
 213, 214, 220, 225, 226, 227, 234, 
 235, 263, 275 
 
 Wilmot Proviso, 84-85, 95, 96, 97, 
 140, 152 
 
 Wilson, Henry, 155, 182 
 
 Wilson, William, 117 
 
 125, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 136, Winnebago Claims, 35, 38, 40, 41, 
 138, 140, 141, 142, 147, 148, 149, 139, 239 
 
 53, 157, 160, 211, 257, 259, 260, Winnebago Indians, 34, 35, 39, 40, 
 
 267, 269, 274, 278 
 White, Horace, 234 
 White, Robert G., 93, 94, 159 
 Wiestling, John S., 248 
 Wigwam, 218 
 Wilkins, William, 20, 23, 24, 25. 
 
 165 
 William and Sarah, 248 
 Williams, Thomas, 142, 227 
 
 254 
 Wisconsin Territory, 34, 36 
 Wolf, George, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 
 
 28, 252, 253 
 Woodbury, Levi, 103 
 Woodward, George W., 58, 60, 61, 
 
 80, 97, 107, 116, 117, 122, 131, 
 
 259, 264 
 Wright, Silas, 51, 09, 266 
 
0^ 
 
 I Abraham Lincoln Book Shop "1 
 
 I CHICAGO 11, ILLINOIS )