IOWA AND THE FIRST NOMINATION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN ¦^^si.. "3' ;:f«- Professor of Economics, Political and BYF. I.PRRIOTT ir of Economics, Polit Social Science, Drake University [Reprloted witU additions (V. 3) ttqm The Annats aS Iowa, Vol. VIII. 1 '1 SOME OF IOWA'S DELEGATES CMcago Convention, May 16-18, 1860 WILLIAM B. ALLISON, U. S. Senator JAMES F. WILSON, U. S. Senator JOHN A. KASSON U.S. Diplomat ALVIN SAUNDERS, U. S. Senator IOWA AND THE FIRST NOMINATION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN. BY F. I. HEERIOTT. Professor of Economics, Political and Social Science, Drake University. The delegates from Iowa will go to Chicago to nominate a. Presidential ticket — the strongest ticket possible — and to this end will be glad to listen to the suggestions of well informed friends at Washington or elsewhere, but they go unpledged, uncommitted, and fully at liberty to hear all suggestions and then to do what sliall commend itself to their unfettered judgment as best for the cause. As it Is in Iowa, so it will be elsewhere. ¦ — Horace Greeley (Feb. 8, 1860). i . . . the blot does not rest upon the liistory of the Union, that this [Lincoln's nomination] the most fate-pregnant decision which an Ameri can convention had ever to make, was brought about by blind chance in combination with base intriguers. Far from it. It was the conscious act of clear-sighted and self-sacrificing patriots to whom honor and grati tude in the fullest measure are due. — ^Von Hoist (1892). 2 I. EXPECTATIONS AND THE MEAGRE MINUTES. The average lowan is wont to indulge in the presumption that Iowa's politicians and statesmen have always played prominent parts in our national affairs. "While often ex pressed in language more exuberant and vasty than modesty or truth sanctions, the assumption is fairly well founded. In recent years no one will gainsay this State's prominence in our Federal councils. Fifty and sixty years ago the case was likewise. Iowa's chiefs commanded attention and exacted consideration in the conduct of the national government. Mr. James G-. Blaine in closing his characterization of the leaders of the Senate at "Washington in the momentous session of 1850, says: "Dodge of "Wisconsin and Dodge of Iowa, father and son, represented the Democracy of the remotest (1) New York Tribune, Feb. 17, I860.— Extract from letter dated at Mansfield, Ohio, written after making circuit of the Northwestern States. (2) Constitutional and Political History of the United States, Vol. VII, p. 173. -2— outposts of the North-"West. ... At no time, before or since in the history of the Senate has its membership been so illustrious, its weight of character and ability so great. "^ Henry Dodge, father, was Iowa's first Governor de facto when the State was a part of "Wisconsin (1836-38).' In the country at large Iowa was regarded as a stronghold of the democ racy and her first Senators, A. C. Dodge and Geo. W. Jones, were considerable factors in the party councils of Presidents Pierce and Buchanan. Both men were given important diplo matic posts when the political revolution in Iowa enforced their retirement from the Senate, the former at Madrid and the latter at Bogota. At the National Democratic Convention in Charleston in 1860, the Douglas forces triumphed in the struggle over the platform and we are told that it was "skill fully accomplished under the lead of Henry B. Payne of Ohio and Benjamin Samuels of lowa."^ In President Taylor's short-lived administration, an lowan, Fitz Henry Warren of Burlington, acquired fame as Assist ant Postmaster-General by his swift elimination of Democratic ofSce-holders,* and his resignation because of indignation over Fillmore's apostasy on the subject of slavery. Afterwards, in 1852, he became the Secretary of the National Executive Committee of the "Whig party in the Pierce-Scott canvass.^ Later the pages of J. S. Pike show us that the brilliant flashes of Warren's pen made him a forceful factor in the determination of anti-slavery opinion and procedure.* It was his clarion calls in 1861 that aroused the furore in the north against the inactivity of the new administration and forced the precipitate movement "On to Eichmond" which ended in the disastrous rout at Bull Run.' (M R'aine's Twent')/ Years of Congress, Vol. 1, p. 90. (2) Governor Robert Lucas, first Territorial Governor of Iowa, 1838-41, was the permanent chairman of the first National Democratic Convention, that met in Baltimore, May 21, 1832. See Parish's Robert Lucas, p. 111. (3) B'aine. Ibid, p. 162: McClure's Our Presidents and Bow We Make them, p. 167. 11) Ben Perlev Poore. Reminiscences, Vol. I, p. 355. (5) Annals of Iowa (3d ser.). Vol. VI, p. 486. (6) Pike's First Blows of the Civil War, pp. 483-4, 496: and Von Hoist's Vol. Vn, pp. 155. 157. ' ^ ' ' (7) Letters from TVashington to New York Tribune; see Mr B H Stiles. Annals Il>., 487-4'>0. It is not unlikely that President Lincoln's refusal to appoint him Postmaster-General, for which he was earnestly pushed by lowans, made Warren's ink more acid than otherwise. -3- The triumph of James W. Grimes in 1854 made him a na tional figure. His election as Governor was a surprise to the entire country. This was not strange for Iowa was looked upon as a "hot-bed of dough faces, "^ and the annals of the ante helium period contain no clearer, stronger, or more courageous pronouncement against the aggressions of the Slavocrats than his address ' ' To the People of Iowa ' ' when he accepted the nomination for Governor.' His election was mostly his personal achievement and not the result, as it would be nowadays, of organization and widely concerted ef fort. Senator Chase of Ohio wrote the new champion that he had waged "the best battle for freedom yet fought."^ Giddings declared that he had made "the true issue" on which the battle had to be fought in the northern States.* In the Senate from 1859 to 1869 he was distinguished "for iron will and sound judgment"^ and became, says Perley Poore "a tower of strength for the administration" in the crises of the war." Grimes's victory in 1854 sent James Harlan to the Senate in 1856. He, too, says a distinguished historian, immediately made his "mark."' His speech on the Lecompton Consti tution won Seward's admiration.^ The Republican Asso ciation at Washington printed and sold at a low price Sena tor Harlan's speeches along with those of CoUamer, Hale, Seward and Henry Wilson.' Harlan was a statesman the country reckoned with, Mr. Blaine telling us that he later became "one of Mr. Lincoln's most valued and most confiden tial friends and subsequently a member of his cabinet."^" No fact, in the writer's judgment, indicates more strik ingly the potency of Iowa's influence at Washington fifty years ago than President Lincoln's appointment in the fore part of his first term of Samuel F. Miller as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He was endorsed strongly by Iowa's bench and bar and by others in States adjacent. The Presi dent, however, delayed making the appointment. Upon per- (1) Von Hoist, Vol. V, p. 78. (2) Salter's Life of Grimes, pp. 34-50. (3) lb., p. 54. (4) lb., p. 63. (5) Blaine, lb., p. 321. (6) Poore, lb.. Vol. II, p. 100. (7) Rhodes' History of U. S., Vol. II, p. 130. (8) P'lke's First Blows, etc., p. 417. (9) Rhodes, lb., p. 131. (10) Blaine, lb., p.,J21, — 4- sonal inquiry, Mr. John A. Kasson, then Assistant Post master-General, learned that the reputation of the Keokuk lawyer "had not then even extended so far as to Springfield, Illinois" (a distance but little over one hundred miles) .^ Nevertheless the appointment was made and Justice MiUer became almost immediately the "dominant personality" of our great court.' The significance of his elevation is this — President Lincoln was not a petty spoilsman and he had no special fondness for the office monger ; but he was a politician par excellence. He made appointments with an eye single to the public good, which was then the preservation of the Union, yet he always gave close attention to the influence of the Potentialities back of the aspirants for office who pressed their claims upon him.^ Government is not a philosophical abstraction or an academic thesis. It is a constantly shifting balance of contrary and divergent forces and interests. It was essential to success in combating the nation's enemies at the front for the President so to co-ordinate factors and con trol conditions behind him as to assure him at once non-inter ference and efficient support. Justice Miller's appointment must have appeared to President Lincoln not only credit able and safe, but eminently worth while, insuring strength upon the bench and influential support for his administration, both in Congress and in Iowa. Besides consideration of the influence of Iowa's leaders we should naturally pre sume that recolLctions of the prominent part taken by lowans on his behalf in the Convention that first nominated him for the Presidency played no small part in deciding President Lincoln to select the then but little known jurist of Keokuk. This presumption, however, is apparently upset if the curi ous make casual inquiry. There is nothing whatever in the record of the proceedings of the Convention showing that Iowa did anything for any candidate worthy of special note or remembrance. One of Iowa's delegates moved an amendment to a motion to thank Chicago's Board of Trade for an invi- (1) Mr. John A. Kasson to Charles Aldrich — letter dated Washington, D. C, Nov. 10, 1893. See Annals, Vol. I, p. 252. (2) Characterization of Chief Justice Chase quoted In Annals, lb., p, 247. (3) See Mr. Horace White's introduf.tion to Herndon & Weik's Lincoln, Vol. I, p. XXII. — 5— tation to an excursion on Lake Michigan.' Another dele gate secured an amendment allowing each State to choose its member of the National Committee as it pleased.' When the Committee on Credentials reported that Iowa had "appointed eight delegates from each Congressional district [Iowa had only two] and sixteen Senatorial delegates," when entitled to but eight votes, the minutes record " [laughter]."^ In the entire proceedings of the Convention, Iowa is credited with but one signifleant performance and that was manifestly either a blunder due to excitement or a play to the galleries — A delegate elicited "great applause" by seconding the nomination of Abraham Lincoln "in the name of two- thirds of the delegation of Iowa. ' ' * Yet, on the first ballot immediately following, Iowa gave Lincoln only two votes, or one-fourth of her quota; and on the third ballot even when it was clear that the candidate of Illinois was al most certain to be nominated Iowa gave over a third of her vote to other candidates.^ After Mr. Cartter of Ohio changed four of Chase's votes to Lincoln and decided the re sult then a delegate from Iowa joined the chorus and on behalf of the delegation moved to make it unanimous." But there is nothing in all this that denotes conspicuous achievement or influence, neither staunch service nor effect ive generalship such as politicians exact. If we turn to formal histories or accounts of national cur rency or general use our presumption is further seriously disturbed. Iowa's influence in the nomination seems to have been conspicuous chiefly by its absence. There are no refer ences to lowans whatever in scores of volumes relating the events of the convention week. One would almost imagine that Iowa's men were not present at all. In practically but one case has the writer found mention of Iowa's influence in a favorable connection and even here the assertion is disputed. In two other instances distinguished national historians refer to her representatives in Chicago in derogatory terms that (1) Proceedings of the First Three Republican National Conventions of 1856, 1860, 186i, published by Charles W. Johnson, p. 91. (2) lb., p. lOT. (3) lb., p. 110. (4) lb., p. 149. (5) lb., pp. 149, 153. (6) lb., p. 154. — 6- seem to imply conduct not worthy of commendation or re spect. In spite of appearances thus to the contrary there are sub stantial reasons for thinking that men from Iowa played an influential part in bringing the Convention to what "V^on Hoist declares was "the most fate-pregnant decision which an American Convention ever had to make," verifying precisely Horace Greeley's prediction three months before, to- wit, " A.s it is in Iowa, so it will be elsewhere." In what follows I shall deal with the animadversions referred to and then exhibit the growth of Republican sentiment in Iowa regarding the Presi dential nomination, the character of Iowa's delegates, and the nature of their work in the Convention. II. DID CLANS OR CHIEFS CONTROL THE CONVENTION.^ Notwithstanding Professor Von Hoist's conclusive demon stration to the contrary'- there still prevails a wide spread notion that the first nomination of Abraham Lincoln was received by the country at large with surprise and shock, a consummation believed to be the issue of either cabals and machinations against New York's candidate or the irrational overwhelming influence of a shouting, surging mob round about the delegates, or of both combined. This notion is not a common popular prejudice merely, but the deliberate con clusion of academic chroniclers and savants.' In a general way Mr. James Ford Rhodes seems to agree with Von Hoist's presentation of the major facts and their interpretation, us- (1) Von Hoist, History, Vol. VII, pp. 149-186. (2) Judge J. V. Quarles in Putnam's Monthhi. Vol. II. p. 59 (April, 1907), says that the nomina tion was a "tremendous surprise" ; Admiral French E. Chadwick In Causes of the Civil War, 18591861 (Amer. Nation: A History, Prof. A. B. Hart, editor. Vol 19, 1906), says "the result was a shock of surprise to the country at large," p. 119; Dr. Guy Carlton Lee In The True History of the Civil War (1903), sa"ys : "The nomination was received with a shock of surprise by the country," and he adds Wendell Phillips' harsh exclamation in The Liberator, "Who is this huckster in politics?" Gold- win Smith In The United States (1893), p. 241, says: "But it was mainly to cabal against Seward that Lincoln owed the Republican nomination" ; Professor Alex. Johnston says : "Much of the opposition to Seward came from the mysterious ramifications of factions in New Tork." Lalor's Cyclopedia of Political and Social Science (1882), reprinted In his Amer. Political History, [edited by Professor J. C. Woodburn, 1906], Vol. II, p. 212. ing the same or similar evidence. But the sweep and implica tions of his assertions give color and substance to the general opinion. In his account of the conditions precedent and de termining the developments and results during the Conven tion week. May 14-18, 1860, Mr. Rhodes makes the following statements in his History of the United States, Vol. II: Contrasting the Eepublican National Uonventions of 1856 and 1860, he says: » » » then [1856] the wire pullers looked askance at a movement whose success was problematical, now [1860] they hastened to identify themselves with a party that apparently had the game in its own hands; then the delegates were liberty-loving enthusiasts and largely volunteers, now the delegates had been chosen by means of the organization peculiar to a powerful party, and in political wisdom were the pick of the Eepublieans (p. 457). Seward's claim for the nomination was strong. * * * Intensely anxious for the nomination, and confidently expecting it, he was alike the choice of the politicians and the people. Could a popular vote on the subject have been taken, the majority in the Eepublican States would have been overwhelmingly in his favor. One day at Chicago sufficed to demonstrate that he had the support of the machine politi cians (p. 460). While much of the outside volunteer attendance from New York and Michigan favoring Seward was weighty in character as well as imposing in number, the organized body of rough fellows from New York City, under the lead of Tom Hyer, a noted bruiser, made a great deal of noise without helping his cause. * * * All the outside pres sure was for Seward or Lincoln, there being practically none for the other candidates. While many of Seward's followers were disinterested and sincere, others betrayed unmistakably the influence of the machine. Lincoln's adherents were men from Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa, who had come to Chicago ient on having u, good time and seeing the rail-splitter nominated, and while traces of organization might be detected among them, it was such organizaton as may be seen in a mob (pp. 462-463). (Italics here.) Several important facts are clearly asserted in the fore going and some serious implications are no less apparent. First, politicians and wire pullers rather than earnest self- sacrificing patriots made up the dominant forces of the Chi cago Convention of 1860. Second, Seward was the choice of the politicians and people alike. Third, honesty or sincerity was for the most part lacking among the rank and file of Seward's followers at Chicago; fourth, earnestness or serious purpose was notably absent from the followers of Mr. Lincoln. By "adherents" he apparently refers chiefly to the "volunteer outside influence," namely, unofficial attendants, rather than to accredited delegates. Yet the comprehensive ness and variable sweep of portions of previous paragraphs suggest that a first impression that delegates were also in cluded is not unwarranted. And, fifth, ilr. Rhodes would have us conclude, we may infer, that Lincoln's nomination was an amazing conclusion resulting from the variable but coercive suggestions of a dominant organized mob. It is but fair to say, however, that ^Ir. Rhodes seems to shrink from this last conclusion, for later he says: "One wonders if those A\ise and experienced delegates^ interpreted this manip ulated noise as the voice of the people" (p. 468). Since Edmund Burke confessed his inability to discover "a method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people," SL-holars and scientists have not deemed it appropriate or safe to condemn institutions, parties or governments, let alone peoples en hloc. ilr. Rhodes is not a psuedo-historian who imagines that cynical contempt for the commonalitj- is a solid basis for historical scholarship; and he does not proceed on the assumption that all men in politics are scamps or scoun drels, although he squints occasionally in that direction. He has deserved renown as a scientific historian who depends upon extensive and minute researches and basic facts, whose narrative is characterized by judicial balance and impartiality, by caution and sobriety of statement. Common prudence makes one hesitate to question his assertions or conclusions. Nevertheless several queries are pertinent which are not wholly academic for there are scores, probably hundreds of men still living, men of eminence in letters and politics in many cases, who took part in that conclave at Chicago. I shall not here undertake to discuss all the phases of the asser tions referred to except indirectly as they affect the character or condiR't of Iowa's representatives at the Convention. (1) Enlarging upon Blaine's notation (Twentti rears of Congress, Vol. I, p. 164), Mr. Rhodes gives a list of some of "the many noted men, or men who afterwards became so," mentioning e. g. E. H. Rollins (N. H.), John A. Anirews, George S. Boutwell, E. L. Pierce (Mass.), Gideon Wells, William M. Evarts and George W. Curtis, David Wllmot and Thaddeus Stevens, Francis P. and Montgomery Blair, Carl Schurz, "John A. Kasson of Iowa." p. 46!i. We may take the statements involving the character and conduct of the lowans in one of two ways. Either the writer meant all that the paragraph implies or he did not mean to be taken strictly. In either case we may ask if char acter and sincerity were confined conspicuously to the unof ficial Seward supporters hailing from New York and Michigan and hence his discrimination of them in the forepart of the paragraph whence the quotation. There were ardent admir ers of the statesman of Auburn from Iowa as well as from Massachusetts who mingled in the throngs that surged the lobbies of the Tremont and Richmond Hotels; such men as Fitz Henry Warren of Burlington and Samuel A. Bowles of The Springfield Republican. Men of like character and local fame by scores and hundreds were with them from the same States and from Wisconsin and Minnesota, and other States as well ; men who worked just as earnestly for Senator Seward and felt the bitter disappointment of his defeat as keenly as did his followers from Michigan and New York. Seward sen timent in Iowa, as will be shown in some detail later, was intense, staunch and wide-spread and when the news of his non-success came his partisans in many a community almost wept in grief and vexation and gloom held them for awhile.^ Another implication that seems to be necessarily involved in the discrimination made in the citation under review is that there was an utter absence of weighty character and sincerity among the "outside volunteer" followers of other candidates. Such a (Conclusion doubtless was not contem plated nor desired perhaps. If so, it may seem unkind to take the statement in all its rigor, but words are rather flinty substances and if thrown recklessly and they strike, hurt and mar. Such a construction is not a captious inference. The (1) Hon. W. G. Donnan, a Representative of Iowa in the Forty-Second and Forty-third Congresses (1871-75), was born and educated in New York. He came to Iowa in 1856. In 1860 (as now), he resided at Inde pendence, and was a strong admirer of Seward. In a letter to the writer lb., 145. Colonel McClure, who took part In the Convention scenes, seems to contradict Mr. Halstead in his Our Presidents, etc. (1900) ; he says: "As the ballots were announced, every vote for Lincoln was cheered to the echo while there were but few cheers for Seward except from the delegates themselves," p. 158. The two ac counts are not reconcilable, a Oldroyd, p. 72. —18— If we are not seriously in error the glamour surrounding the memory of President Lincoln has produced a notable con fusion in the explanations of his astonishing success at Chi cago. Logicians define it as reasoning post hoc ergo propter hoc. Mr. Seward's nomination was expected; Mr. Lincoln's. was not. Crowds were conspicuous at the Convention ; noth ing like their numbers or performances had ever before been witnessed. Popular feeling, excitement and uproar were phe nomenal. But as one chronicler puts it, it was the unex pected that happened. When the clans and tribes assem bled, keen-eyed chiefs soon perceived that the real contest lay between the candidates of Illinois and New York. The op ponents of Seward in the doubtful States months previously had realized the necessity for his defeat. The chiefs of the clans had no sooner assembled than they discovered that Lin coln was the only man on whom all could concentrate. Later the crowds hailing from the States whence the leaders came began to respond to the appeals of their chiefs. Then the ground-swells of partisan enthusiasm began to run heavily in Lincoln's favor. By the time the balloting began the surge and the roar of the anti-Seward sentiment became portentous terrific, overwhelming. The result, however, was not ergo propter hoc. There was, of course, much of local fondness for Abraham Lincoln, there was perhaps somewhat (but little) of "the West versus the East." Engulfing and overmaster ing all was a Cause, its success and the Nation's safety. Crowds and mobs, now and thenj do exert a potent influ ence upon the decisions of deliberative bodies. But we utterly misconceive the nature of the result at Chicago if we conclude that the shouting throngs determined the votes of the dele gates. The outcome was not the ordering of the elans and tribes clanging their spears and shields, but the decision of their chiefs in council. It was a battle of captains and not a plebiscite of the militia's rank and file. The clans and the ranks listened to the pleadings and protests of Greeley and Field of New York, of Curtin and McClure of Pennsylvania, of Welles of Connecticut and the Blairs of Maryland and Mis souri, of Lane and DeFrees of Indiana, of Davis, Judd and Swett of Illinois, of Kirkwood and Saunders, Nourse and Wil- —19— son of Iowa, and their favor turned. Convinced soon that tlie champion of their choice could not triumph such chiefs and captains as Mr. John A. Kasson and Judge Reuben Noble, Mr. John W. Rankin and Mr. Wm. P. Hepburn, Mr. Coker F. Clarkson and Mr. William B. Allison concurred. Their concert was not the prejudice of the crowd nor the changeable opinion of a mob. It was the conviction of men trained in the tactics and strategy of party strife — ^of men who knew that the People's Cause was not to be won merely by the recognition of a theory or the exaltation of a favorite champion, of men who knew that the imperative condition of success was the conquest of stubborn adverse conditions. They were not idealists or prophets simply, but practical politi cians. They knew that victory perches upon the banners of the best organized and best led battalions. Sanguine antici pations and zeal are needed but are not enough. A study of maps and regions in dispute, a specific knowledge of the battle fields' and a certain commissariat are also prerequisites. Politicians in their hysterics and rhapsodies following suc cess are wont to regard victory as vox populi. Thus Leonard Swett 'exclaimed a few days following the convention : ' ' The nomination is from the people and not the politicians. No pledges have been made, no mortgages executed, but Lincoln entei'S the field a free man. ' ' ^ Enough has been exhibited to make one skeptical of his assertion. If ever politicians controlled, or rather directed, a convention, if ever leaders courageously resisted the emotional and erratic impulses of the mob or if you please "the people" the Chicago Conven tion was a case in point. We know now that Abraham Lin coln was of all the leaders in view the best that could have been chosen to guide our ship of State through the storms about to break. So much so that all will incline to agree with Admiral Chadwick that if an All-Wise Providence directs the destiny of these United States His favor was manifest indeed on May 18, 1860.^ But the decision was not the voice of the people that spoke but the judgment of patriotic politicians who saw or felt the steady ingathering of black and fearful 1 Oldroyd, p. 73. 2 Chadwick, Causes of the Civil War, p. 123. —20— forces whose terrific momentum was to wrench the very foun dations of the Deep itself. In choosing their pilot some of the methods of politicians were exemplified. Abraham Lin coln sought the nomination but he wished it without lien or prejudice. But the prize was not so awarded. Leonard Swett either did not know or he forgot about the negotiations of Lincoln's field officer, Judge David Davis, with Indiana and Pennsylvania, whereby Caleb Smith and Simon Cameron were assured of position in the Cabinet if the Rail-Splitter was nominated and victory perched on the party standards on the Ides of November following. If he was not privy to them his Shade must have suffered distress on reading the revelations of Lamon and Herndon.^ III. WEEE IOWA's delegates ON THE TRADE? Addressing the Republican State Convention of Iowa at Des Moines in 1904 Senator William B. Allison said that of all the events in his long career as a public servant he was most proud of the fact that as a young man he enjoyed the confidence of his fellow republicans to such a degree that he was selected as one of Iowa's delegates to the convention that first put Abraham Lincoln in nomination for the Presidency. Fame in the last analysis is chiefly the historian's favorable verdict. The patriot's ambition is the hope that he may serve his country in great affairs and be thought well of by his compeers and his successors. But it seems to be the fate of the patriot or statesman to suffer much from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. In the clash of political strife he expects and endures with what patience he may bold as persions or gross hints adverse to his honor. He knows that good men suffer because evil men work, flourish and escape. When, however, the storm and stress are over and passion is still he does not expect their reiteration in cool blood and unless amply justified he resents it. Obviously the greater 1 Lamon, Life of Lincoln, pp.449-450, 457-461 — Herndon, lb., p. 181. —•21— a man's eminence and the finer his type of character the mora sensitive he is to charges or suggestions implying reprehensi ble conduct or petty behavior in matters of great concern. Irritation is not lessened when a reflection comes via a partial statement that discreetly hits no one in particular but in gen eral each and all thereby involved. It mitigates the smart but little when it appears in the sober narrative of an erudite and distinguished historian, buttressed by the awesome authority of quotation marks. The greater the headway the greater is the leeway to twist a quip of Oliver Wendell Holmes. The situation is enhanced of course if perchance it turns out that no facts justify the allegation or give it even the color of justification. Resentment then becomes indignation. In a biography of Salmon P. Chase, written by Dr. Albert Bushnell Hart, professor of American History in Harvard University, a few years since for the well-known series of "American Statesmen," appears the following paragraph: As the time for the Convention approached. Chase found a few friends and staunch delegates from other States; but he got glimpses also of a stratum of intrigue into which he could not descend. The Spragues were said to have bought the Khode Island State election for $100,000, and some of the Rhode Island delegates were "purohaseable;" some delegates from Iowa were on the "trading taoTc," aid in In diana there was "a floating and marketable vote." A Philadelphia editor wrote to him with unblushing frankness that he had worked foif Cameron but that ' ' if any little subcontract could be given us which would enable us to realize a little profit, we would endeavor to serve Ohio to the full extent of our ability. ' ' But neither Bhode Island, Pennsylvania, Iowa nor Indiana gave any votes for Chase at Chicago. (pp. 189-190. Italics here.) One receives two decided impressions on reading the fore going. First, there was an astounding amount of corruption prevalent in the preliminaries, if not in the proceedings, of the Republican National Convention of 1860. Second, the character or conduct of Iowa's delegates was smirched with the same pitch that soiled the delegates from other States. All of which, in the classic phrase of Horace Greeley, is "mighty interesting, if true." The paragraph, however, is a sort of omnibus of damna tory citations and sinister suggestions. As is usual with the —22— contents of such vehicles the assortment cannot with ease be precisely defined or interpreted for the reason that the state ments are somewhat ill-conditioned and indefinite in their suggestiveness. A sharp scrutiny of the paragraph leaves one in some perplexity. It is not quite clear whether trans actions prior to the assembly of the National Convention are referred to only or the proceedings during the Convention week are included. It is immaterial for the terms offered Chase by the thrifty patriots clearly contemplated specific performance in the Convention and thereafter delivery of the benefits or goods bargained for, whether cash, contracts, or patronage. There is perhaps a distinction but certainly not a difference between a delegate who impudently insists upon a quid pro quo in the form of an office before supporting a candidate or measure and a man who openly resorts to bar gain and sale for cash on delivery. The unlikeness is scarcely important, it being merely a sugar-coating or veneer disguis ing a disagreeable thing. Although reprehensible conduct is plumply asserted none of the statements it is instructive to note are direct or positive so that an explicit charge is posited or particular individuals are pinioned or pilloried. The Spragues "were said." What Spragues! The family into which Miss Kate Chase married! "Some" of Rhode Island's delegates; "some of Iowa's dele gates were on the trading tack ; ' ' and Indiana had ' ' a floating .and marketable vote." Does the latter relate to the electors or to the delegates? Was the trading of the lowans with a view to cash, contracts or offices? Stated ordinarily in common political discussion the ref erence to Iowa would be taken to mean but little else than the prosaic practice of making combinations or "deals" in the final clinch of a convention. But the context with its serious accusations or assertions of gross misconduct makes the casual reader and the student alike conclude that Iowa's delegates were guilty of crass venality. No one needs to be told that in nearly every case Professor Hart in effect flatly charges conduct that smacks of crimin ality. No effective corrupt practice act would tolerate such proceedings. Disgrace and ouster, if not fine and imprison- SOME OF IOWA'S DELEGATES AT LARGE Chicago Convention, May 16-18, 1860 JOHN W. RANKIN, State Senator M. L. Mcpherson, state Senator L. C. NOBLE, Merchant COKER F. CLARKSON, State Senator NICHOLAS J. RUSCH, Lieutenant Governor H. P. SCHOLTE, Minister JOHN JOHNS, Minister —23— ment, would promptly ensue, upon the submission of proofs. Disagreeable truth must now and then be told. If this is or may be necessary the particular persons chargeable with of fensive conduct should be explicitly referred to.^ Otherwise associates free from blame are equally involved, being be- smudged or damned by implication. ' ' Professor Hart should not make the charge against the honor of our State, ' ' says one of the delegates yet living who enjoys international fame in Diplomacy, Letters and Politics, "without producing some proof of its own verity. Indeed, his charge is made in the lowest terms. 'Some delegates from Iowa were on the trad ing tack. ' Such indefinite charges it is difficult to answer. ' ' ^ Who were the traders? The delegates who voted for Chase, e. g.. Judge Wm. Smyth of Marion, and Mr. William B. Allison of Dubuque? Or the delegates who did not and would not vote for Chase, e. g., Mr. Wm. Penn Clarke, of Iowa City, or Col. Alvin Saunders of Mt. Pleasant, Mr. Jas. F. Wilson of Fairfield, or Mr. Henry 0 'Connor of Muscatine, Mr. Wm. P. Hepburn of Marshalltown, or the Rev. H. P. Scholte of Pella, Mr. Coker F. Clarkson of Metropolis or Lieut. Gov. Nich{3las Rusch of Davenport, or Messrs. C. C Nourse and John A. Kasson of Des Moines? Such inquiries are not idle or irrelevant but intrusive and inevitable; both on the part of the delegates living and the relatives and friends of the dead, and on the part of associates and citizens interested in the good name of the commonwealth; for as we shall see later few States sent delegations to the Chicago Con vention having greater caliber and character than was found among the official representatives of the Hawkeyes. Professor Hart enjoys great fame as a historian. He is at once an indefatigable student and narrator and a lea(ling au- 1 If Professor Hart cares to examine an instructive illustration of the sort of direct and explicit charge that justice requires if wrong doing is to be asserted, he will find It in the pages of Mr. Charles E. Hamlin's Life and Times of Hannibal Hamlin, where in the latter's defeat in the Baltimore convention in 1864 and the nomination of An drew Johnson for the Vice-Presidency is specifically charged to the "unscrupulous action" of the then Governor of Iowa — the charge being accompanied by exhibits of very damaging evidence tljat seem to sub stantiate the accusation, (See pp. 477-479.) 2 Mr. John A. Kasson, to the writer. Letter dated Nahant, Mass., August 28, 1906. -24— thority in historical criticism and scientific procedure. He is therefore entitled to the presumption that he means what he says or he does not ; that he must have examined the official list of Iowa's delegates and realized that many of them afterwards acquired celebrity in our national history or he did not ; that he must have carefully sifted the evidence for his statement or he did not In all cases either alternative entitles us to call for specific references and proof, so that the innocent shall not suffer with the guilty or to insist upon retraction or modi fication, if his animadversion is unsupported. The offense against good men is not lessened in these pre mises but increased by the fact that Professor Hart utilized and apparently wholly depended upon Salmon P. Chase's pri vate correspondence. An eminent public man like Chase is daily in receipt of letters from scores of friends, admirers or strangers, freely relating their views of men and measures. Such epistolary declarations are usually colored greatly by the prejudice of the writer's personal or partizan friendships or desires; and are often heedless or reckless. As they are not intended for the public eye the indiscriminate statements matter but little as the recipient is seldom so heedless or reck less as to give them publicity. We certainly may presume that Chase did not give much currency to the revelations of his various correspondents. Certainly he did not expose them to the hurt of official and party contemporaries whom he held in great esteem or respect ; and he no more would have desired to have any use made thereof even after his death during the lives of his associates. Messrs. James F. Wilson, John A. Kasson and William B. Allison were the official and party associates of Chase between 1861 and his death in 1873 and each one of them enjoyed national fame for ability and high character. And the two last mentioned were living in 1899 when the biography in question was published and they are still living! Something of a very serious character exhibit ing elaborate or enormous iniquity affecting adversely either the public welfare or actually thwarting Chase's ambition as regards the nomination at Chicago alone can justify the ex posure of that correspondence in such wise as needlessly to —2r>— besmudge the good names of honorable delegates yet living in Indiana and Iowa, and perhaps Rhode Island. Inquiry develops the fact that the whole basis for the state ment affecting Iowa is the following letter!^ Its contents are given entire. Their use or misuse in the foregoing is the only justification for their exhibition here. Only the initials of the subscriber are given although as. will be apparent, there is really no particular reason for withholding his name : Gate City OflSce, Keokuk, Feby. 24, '60. Hon. S.- P. Chase, Dear Sir: Some time since I had your views on the Tariff pub lished in the Gate City, and I have just republished the New Orleans Bulletin's notice of your election to the Senate. I was at our State Convention, but I found the delegates, who were all aspiring politicians, very wary, & it was diflScult to sound them, though I judged you had about as many friends as anybody. We have just received The Tribune of the 20th, which comes out for Bates. We were not unprepared for such a move, & yet it rather strikes us with surprise. Our impression now is that it will not damage you or Seward in this State. The Chicago delegates from this (Lee) county are Senator Rankin, of this place, & Dr. Walker of Ft. Madison, — ^both, no doubt, in favor of Cameron first & both of them rather on the trading tack. I am sorry to say that, as a politician & with leading politicians of the State, our friend Ex-Governor Lowe has little influence. Will you do me the favor to send, if convenient, a copy of your first inaugural — or the one which contained your argument on the Single District System. Mr. Denison and family are well; Mrs. R. is not very well, but joins me in kind regards. Respectfully, W.— E. P. S. At present, I have no pecuniary interest in the Gate City Office. But as the Editor-in-Chief, Mr. Howell, broke his leg last November, & is still on his back, and his partner, Mr. Briggs, was gone to Washington to fill some place obtained for him by our Col. Curtis, — I am left here in full charge for present, but am not certain as to my future. W. R.2 As a base for a serious reflection upon a body of delegates we are greatly mistaken if most persons will not regard the foregoing letter as utterly inadequate. It is a basis so narrow and thin that few persons even in the heat of bitter partizan ¦debate would venture to make use of it adverse to any one. From beginning to end there is nothing whatever in it either directly or by fair inference warranting Professor Hart's use of the letter in the connection exhibited above. It relieves 1 Professor Hart to writer, Aug. 2n, 1906. 2 From Papers of Salmon P. Chase in the Library of Congress, Wash ington, D. C. tlic Iwd drlcK'iil.i'H arhiall.V iiiciil.idiicd, iih well IIH all of Uic oUici'.s rroiii (idvci'sc cril.icism or .jikIkiikmiI,. Tile lel.lci', to gotlicr wil.li II I'miiiiiiiMicniJoii oi' ii. i'(iiilciii|i()nir,v of W, It yd, living;', ix'wm iih Uic lollowiiiK' I'acl.s: W. It. was II. |n'i',H(iiiii,l rriciul or old linic iic(iiiii,iiiliuii',o of Siilinoii r. (liiiis(v 11(1 cinno lo Keokuk in IHM iiiid iiiilii 18(;i wiiH biisiiKwH iiiiiiiiinvr (if The, (litlr Cilji. He iidniii'od Ciiiise imicii, heeiinie a \viil,eiier iiiid worker in beliiiH' of l.lio Oliioiiii's eiuididiiey I'or l,lii'1ii|iImIiii' (jI' KiviUiili Ici llii< wi'lli'i-. ,laii. 'i'i, III07. —27— bits of conversation he suspected that they were "rather" on the trading tack. He does not so much as intimate that they had broached or hinted at a trade or mercenary transaction. What W. R. refers to he does not assert as a fact — he merely intimates a surmise of his whereas Professor Hart omits the "rather" and absolutely asserts that "some of Iowa's dele gates were on the 'trading tack,' '' his assertion being a bold presumption wholly his own, with no substantial proof offered therefor. In fine, Professor Hart apparently is clearly subject to criticism on several counts. First, he misuses Chase's corre spondence while official colleagues and party associates are yet alive. Second, he has by a partial statement imputed repre hensible conduct to thirty- two prominent citizens of Iowa when only two, if any, were by any manner of means derelict. Third, he does gross injustice to the two delegates in question for he asserts as a fact what the authority on whom he de pends, does not so assert and intimates nothing that gives even color to such a charge of misconduct. Fourth, by an impor tant omission of a qualifying word he perverts the sense of W. R.'s statement and thus seriously misrepresents the authority he relies upon. Fifth, Professor Hart's language in the last sentence of the paragraph quoted above indicates that he did not scrutinize the tally sheets of the Convention very care fully. Professor Hart says that "neither Rhode Island, Pennsyl vania, Iowa nor Indiana gave any votes to Chase at Chicago. ' ' The statement is correct as to Pennsylvania and Indiana, but it is grossly in error as to Rhode Island and impliedly so as to Iowa. On the first ballot Rhode Island gave Chase one vote, on the second three votes, and on the third one vote. Iowa gave Chase one of her eight votes on the first ballot and one-half a vote on the second and third ballots.^ The vote of Iowa represented four Chase delegates on the first and two delegates on each of the other ballots. If Professor Hart means to be taken Mterally, Iowa, of course, gave Chase no "votes" because she cast but one for him, but Rhode Island certainly gave him votes. 1 Proceedings, pp. 149, 152, 153. —28— Responding to the writer '^s inquiry as to the meaning of his statement and the authority therefor, Professor Hart in closing his letter says : "I did not suppose when I quoted the phrase that any one would take it to mean that the delegates were trading for money. They were probably trying to get some assurance as to cabinet appointments, a vice presidential candidate, or something of that kind." Professor Hart's disclaimer of harmful purpose in quoting W. R.'s harmless phrase must be accepted as complete and final. But the ex planation, while it relieves the situation somewhat, does not restore the status quo. It does not abolish the paragraph with its positive declaration, with its ugly implication. There are few libraries in the country that lack the classic volumes of "American Statesmen," the series in which Professor Hart's Life of Chase appears. Thousands have read and thousands will yet read that, when patriots were called upon tc make the "most fate-pregnant decision" a national con vention ever had to make, Iowa's notables were mere huck sters and petty traders and they will conclude that they were worse. In view of the exhibit and analysis of the evidence for the adverse charge under consideration a defense of the character or conduct of Senator J. W. Rankin of Keokuk, or of Dr. J. C; Walker, the former a delegate-at-large, and the latter a district delegate is superfluous. Senator Rankin was the law partner of Samuel F. Miller, whose elevation to the Supreme Bench has already been referred to. Tradition has it that he was Keokuk's most brilliant lawyer in the days when the Gate City shone with such brilliants. Dr. Walker we shall see was a man who enjoyed the confidence of his fellow towns men and was held in high esteem. Characterizing them in a personal interview with the writer, Hon. Charles C. Nourse, now as in 1860 of Des Moines, one of the leaders of Iowa's Lincoln forces before and during the Convention says of his associates: "Dr. Walker and Senator Rankin were both men of great ability and solid character with a fine sense of honor in public matterk. Neither pettiness nor desire for private gain were moving motives with either."^ Whatever Dr. 1 Interview with Hon. Charles C. Nourse. lb. —29— Walker's preference may have been in February, in May and at Chicago his voice and votes were from flrst to last for Abraham Lincoln.^ Senator Rankin, on the other hand, was a firm advocate of the nomination of Simon Cameron. One of Keokuk's noted lawyers labored for several days prior to the Convention to persuade him to vote for Lincoln but with out effect.^ At Chicago, however. Senator Rankin turned to Illinois' candidate as soon as he realized that Cameron's chances were nil. Taking the phrase "trading tack" in a large and honorable sense, and a common sense, and it is not improbable that the two delegates mentioned did have certain ambitious plans in contemplation for securing vice presidential honors for Iowa. As will be shown in a subsequent section, there are reasons for thinking that friends of James Harlan, Iowa's distinguished senior senator at that time, were not unmindful of a political situation that contained many chances in favor of such a con summation. The matter was broached both privately and pub licly and may have been in the minds of Senator Rankin and Dr. Walker. rv. MEN AND METHODS IN CONVENTION.. A political convention in a Democracy like ours is of ne cessity a fortuitous concourse. No one ordinarily expects to find such an assembly composed only of philosophers and dentists, saints and statesmen. On the other hand such con claves are seldom made up of shysters, knaves or fools. For the reason, in both cases doubtless, that neither would be tol erated by the general public. If the area of interests involved is extended or *'\e issues at stake vital and momentous, the confluence of forces at the common center, no matter how quietly they may originate or serenely they may flow in, must produce commotion. If the currents thus concenter with great momentum a convention in the nature of the case con cludes in a maelstrom. To the unemotional onlooker in lobby or gallery and especially to the scholastic who coolly studies 1 Mr. J. P. Cruikshank of Ft. Madison to the writer, April 26, 1907. 2 Mr. Henry Strong, now of Chicago, to the writer, June 4, 1907. —30— the records, the din and noise, the excitement, tempests and uproar seem utterly absurd and dangerous. Nevertheless they are not unnatural. Wisdom does not always predominate in their proceedings but no more does irrationality, or stupid perversity always prevail. Two classes of persons compose our political conventions be they state or national. One class consists of those who care only for issues or principles. The other class is prin cipally concerned with individuals or personalities — namely champions, or themselves. Such gatherings if they are to prove efficient must be composed of both classes in about equal proportions ; since cranks and visionaries are as certain to run amuck and make success impossible, as petty heelers and sordid spoilsmen are to offend the law and the prophets. Each class divides into two groups. The first class con sists of the extremists who insist strenuously upon explicit and heroic measures, and declarations of doctrine regardless of contrary considerations of time or place, and of the mod crates whose foremost interest is always the success of their cause but who realize that conditions determine success and should control practical measures — hence ¦ they support this or that champion of their principle believing that their cause will attain success more speedily by his promotion. Some of the latter type stand staunchly by their champion through thick and thin, hoping all things and doing all things in his behalf. Others deliberately canvass the situation, coolly cal culate the chances of this or that representative candidate, and if they perceive that fortune does not favor their own preferences throw their influence in the direction that seems most likely to assure approximate success. Further, if their flrst estimate proves wrong they then change. The claims of friendship or admiration are not their chief concern; it is consideration for the success of their cause that dominates them. Iowa had some excellent illustrations of these types in the Convention at Chicago. Judge Wm. Smyth cast votes for Chase at each ballot even when he must have seen that the Ohioan did not have a ghost of a show but he was staunch for a principle. Wm. Penn Clarke, Rev. H. P. Scholte and six or seven others stood firm for Seward throughout the balloting notwithstanding the breaks in his columns in the New England States on the second £ind third ballots. The Lincoln men under the lead of Col. Alvin Saunders and Mr. C. C. Nourse, in spite of hea-vy odds, worked from the first for the candidate of Illinois. ^Ir. Coker P. Clarkson was a steadfast admirer of both Judge ilcLean and Governor Chase; having enjoyed personal and political associations with each in Ohio. In the Convention, however, he cast his vote on the first and second ballots for Judge ilcLean. On the third ballot he went to Lincoln. The second general class instead of contemplating chiefly general principles and grand results is interested principally in p2rsonalities, either champions or themselves. They in sist ipon and care for correct principles and righteousness in a practical way, as do the former class, but they visualize then, more in tangible leaders. This class probably comprises usually the larger numbers in conventions. This class too is easily discernible in two groups or kinds. One kind is made up of hero-worshipers, the major number perhaps. They feel and see the issues of right and wrong only through per sonalities. A leader who champions their cause they ardently admire. There is little or no analysis, no comparison, no synthesis of views or points of conduct. The champion's ability, his looks and manner, his prowess in debate, his suc cesses, his steadfastness in the faith, his sacrifices for the cause enthrall the mind and energize heart and hand. They join his forces and work and proselyte in his behalf. Ardor and sentiment are likely to characterize their performances rather than cool calculation and reasoning, youth rather than age; and in the progress and culmination of a canvass they are wont to hear vox dei in the noise of the shouting throngs of the street and the amphitheatre. But enthusiasm and zeal if faults are exceedingly common — ^indeed, most normal per sons regard them as commendable virtues. Few regard the character of those so delinquent as worthy of indictment on the score of sincerity or intelligence for the reason probably that it would include most of us. "I was," says Henry VU- lard, "enthusiastically for the nomination of Wm. H. Seward « * * « • ipjjg noisv demonstrations of his followers -32- and especially of the New York delegation in his favor made me sure, too, that his candidacy would be irresistible. ' '^ Most critical persons with a cynical turn of mind are wont to sneer much at this sort of thing. But it is not so irrational or illogical as may seem at first flush. Large numbers united and vocal for a candidate or cause indicate decided unanimity of opinion or general concurrence of interests or views. Such concurrence of numbers is presumptively the result of rational considerations and sensible conclusions. Most men are too busy to give particular attention or devote time to the study of conditions and causes, of the pros and cons of men and measures in issue. They turn to the men of "light and lead ing" to whom they have been accustomed to look and defer. They do not supinely follow their leadership but generally the consideration that decides them is the feeling that the numbers indicate a better or more informed judgment than their own. The second sort who are interested in personalities rather than causes or principles is the group that think of their own individual welfare. They may be manifest in that aggravat ing species who seek to be on the winning side — ^they flit and flutter between the lines, anxious and uncertain lest they de cide unwisely. This class is discouragingly numerous, not only in conventions but everywhere else. They mean well and usually are harmless in intent; they lack acute intelli gence and steady nerve. They seek popularity and cannot endure the idea of defeat or nonsuccess. Another species comprises those who follow politics for a livelihood or as a profession. Not all or for that matter the major portion are petty and sordid in seeking their own interest. There are few men who do not covet public honors and promotion, and all must live. Affiliation with a party is the chief mode of ad vancement in politics. One ambitious for honors or anxious for a livelihood in politics must align himself with some fac tion, interest or issue. Otherwise such an one will be vox daman lis in deserto. Hope of immediate personal success may 1 Memoirs, Vol. I, 137. Mr. Villard later became the President and creator of the Northern Pacific Railroad. He also was a financial backer If not a decisive factor in the management of the two great journals ot New York, The Nation and The Evening Post. —33— be and usually is coupled with the noblest aspirations for human welfare. Some thus animated, however, are willing, if need be, to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the cause, as witness Lincoln's deference to Trumbull and his insistance upon putting the Freeport Questions. Others permit the ardor of desire to blur the vision and impel disregard of the niceties of conduct as was the case with Ohio's noble Roman, Salmon P. Chase, in his later relations with his great rival and coad jutor. There are, of course, in conventions, no small number who are narrow, petty and sordid in their calculations and strife for immediate benefit. They regard such a conclave as a sort of fair or market where hucksters gather for bargain and sale and higgling and haggling is the rule. Oftentimes, alas, the dickering is corrupt and utterly vicious. Shakespeare de scribes the conduct of this miserable fraternity in his lines depicting the species of human kind that Dodge And palter in the shifts of baseness. The latter class are an abomination and should be given short shrift. The former class exhibit a low order of political intelligence and virtue. They are simply petty and stupid but not necessarily shysters or scoundrels. Academicians and arm-chair critics are wont to over-em phasize or misjudge the numbers and the significance of the huckstering or corrupt politicians in conventions. A few black sheep in a flock makes most persons reach hasty and sweeping conclusions whence one infers that the entire num ber is discolored. Taking the daily occurrence of horrible headlines in our sensational press they talk as if crime and divorce were universal and rampant. Pettiness, sordidness and corruption are found in politics and conventions and per haps are more impudent and obtrusive but they are discover able and prevalent in all other walks of life in similar meas ure. Again it is not easy to differentiate the bad or unde sirable from the necessary. Petty trading in offices is not particularly laudable. Yet combinations or "deals" in the large, adjustments of forces and compromises of conflicting interests are imperative if a convention is to avoid futile con- —34— troversy that easily invokes serious estrangements or concludes in disruption.Among the men from Iowa in the Convention of 1S60. were a number who possessed rare powers of discernment and achievement. They were masters in political tactics and strategy: men who shortly thereafter attained great eminence in public life and just fame. They severally had their pref erences but the triumph of anti-slavery principles and success of the party at the poUs were the predominant considerations with them. Mr. John A. Kasson preferred Edward Bates of ^Missouri and Mr. Wm. B. Allison's choice was Salmon P. Chase ; but after they realized the futility of their hopes both threw their votes and influence in favor of Lincoln. Col. Alvin Saunders at heart would have rejoiced if Seward could have been made the candidate but an extended correspond ence prior to going to Chicago with leaders in Illinois, Indi ana and Pennsylvania convinced him that the nomination of the New Yorker put success in jeopardy. Consequently notwithstanding his attachment to Senator Harlan, who earn estly desired Seward's selection, Colonel Saunders went to Chicago and did yeomen service for the Illinoisan. Governor Kirkwood, at bottom prejudiced in favor of Chase because of early associations as Democrats in Ohio, frankly wrote Iowa's senior Senator that if long and able service were de cisive ilr. Seward was entitled to the nomination, especially because he had long been the "best abused man" in the party. Nevertheless he concluded that other matters had the right of way. Saunders and Kirkwood were perhaps Iowa's lead- ei-s in promoting Lincoln 's candidacy : One or the other prob ably taldng part in the "Committee of Twelve'' whose decision doubtless exercised a potent if not decisive influence upon the final result. A fact of the greatest significance in the conduct of all the lowans in the Convention was their staunch stand and sturdy fight in the presence of overwhelming odds. Two of the Chase delegates, all of the Seward delegates stood fast throughout the three ballots. All of the others apparently decided to go to Lincoln, when his chances were not favorable, when Horace Greeley had telegraphed The Tribune that the opposition to —35- Seward could not unite and conceded the latter's nomina tion. If Iowa's contingent had been petty traders and huck sters, or politicians of the weather-vane sort, they certainly would not have aligned themselves with the "Rail-Splitter" and his uncertain prospects. They would have joined the supporters of Seward the "popular" man, the man •whose forces were led by the wizard Weed, the man for whom Col. A. K. McClure says "two-thirds" of the delegates reaUj^ wanted to vote. V. CONDITIONS ATHWART THE PLANS OF WEED, GREELEY, AND THE BLAIES. If one inquires of lowans who were contemporary observers of political events in 1860 as to the state of the public mind respecting the nomination of Abraham Lincoln, he receives various answers. One of Des Moines' leading citizens who was an influential Democrat in the capital city in 1860, de clared orally to the writer : ' ' Everybody 'round here was for Mr. Lincoln." "Before the Convention?" "That's my rec ollection." Professor Jesse Macy, of Iowa College at Grin- nell, writes: "Lincoln before the Convention was unknown or he made little impression. . . . Lincoln struck us as a surprise." An attendant on the Convention, Mr. J. H. Mer rill, of Ottumwa, says that many from Iowa were present at Chicago during the Convention week and they were "almost without exception in favor of Seward. ' ' Dr. William Salter of Burlington, whose intimate associations with the State's dominant men were exceptional and his interest in anti- slavery propaganda alert and active, states, ' ' Both parties are in the fog now [February, 1907] as to who will get the nom ination for the next presidential election; it was just so in 1859-60. Things were very much mixed and confused. ' ' ^ Doctor Salter but re-echoes the editorial expression of a keen observer in those days, Mr. Charles Aldrich, in The Hamilton Freeman, April 21, 1860: "It is proverbially the darkest just before day. . . . The great Conventions of the three parties are on the point of assemblying and yet at no time during the past twelve months have the indications of their actions been more confused and indistinct. And it is 1 Citations above, except flrst, from letters to the writer. —36— plain that the wise heads at Washington are fully as much in the dark about the prospects as the people in Aroostook." Mr. Aldrich 's observations were not only aptly put but accurate. In August, 1859, Congressman James M. Ashley, of Toledo, traveled in various States to ascertain the chances of Gov. Salmon P. Chase for securing the nomination, and he informed Charles A. Dana, then associate editor of The New York Tribune, that "the Northwest is quite as much for Chase as for Seward," but Dana wrote to J. S. Pike that he had "the best information to the contrary, particularly from Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Indiana, where the Germans who hold the balance of power, are hot Seward men."^ The New York Herald, on March 7, 1860, in forecasting the result at Chicago gave Iowa's entire vote to Cameron, and on May 16th its columns contained two dispatches from Chicago, one dated May 11th, asserting that "Minnesota and Iowa are for Seward," and the other. May 15th, declaring that a majority of the delegates of Iowa would go to Lincoln. In Greeley's Tribune, May 15th, the day preceding the Convention, its Chicago advices were "Iowa is discordant and uncertain." When Iowa was called on the flrst ballot for the nomination for President, Friday morning, May 18, 1860, the immense throng in the Wigwam was in a state of intense expectancy. William H. Seward, contrary to expectation, had received only 147% votes, and Abraham Lincoln 100 votes, more than twice the number received by any of his competitors. The votes of the Hawkeyes, though few, were important, as their state was known to be within the sphere of doubtful territory, possession of which was essential to the party's successi in the ensuing election. Mr. Wm. Penn Clarke, a la'wyer and leader, of Iowa City, whose fame exceeded the borders of the State, arose as chairman to announce the vote of the delegation. He essayed to speak, but not a word was forthcoming. His effort was obvious but vain. The delegation sat by in astonishment and general wonderment began to be manifest. It was soon realized that Mr. Clarke was suffering from an impediment in his speech that was serious only when he was laboring under great excitement. Perceiving that utterance would be futile 1 Pike's First Blows of the Civil War, p. 443. -37- or painful, a delegate came to his relief and announced that Iowa gave one vote each to Edward Bates of Missouri, Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania, Salmon P. Chase and John Mc Lean, both of Ohio, two votes to Abraham Lincoln, of Illi nois, and two votes to William H. Seward, of New York.^ Each of Iowa's votes represented the concurrent preferences of four delegates, as her delegation numbered thirty-two. This division of her vote among six candidates was note worthy. No other northern or free State p'arcelled out its vote so variously as did Iowa. Connecticut, New Hamp shire, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island gave their votes to four candidates on the first roll call; all other States to three can didates or less. In three of the States mentioned the chances of victory for the Republicans in the Fall campaign were far from certain. It is interesting to note, and significant withal, that one southern or slave State, Kentucky, on the same ballot, gave her thirty-three votes to six candidates, favoring four that Iowa did, but voting for Wade and Sumner instead of Bates and Cameron. On the second ballot, Iowa gave her vote to four candidates, Chase, Lincoln, McLean and Seward; and on the third and decisive ballot, the delegation was still di vided — Chase received i/^ vote, Lincoln 51/2, and Seward 2 votes. Such marked and persistent division among Iowa's men must have reflected not only lack of harmony, due to stubborn personal preferences of the delegates, but sharp factional dis sensions in the party 's ranks in Iowa. Or that distribution of votes may be looked upon as evidence of the tactics of trading politicians, maneuvering for position so as to insure favor from the successful champion. However Iowa's action may be considered, we cannot realize its significance until we ap preciate the people and the politics of the State whence the delegation hailed; for, even if trading was their primary concern, politicians seldom act in such a wise as to run seri ously athwart the inclinations of their constituents, since Suc cess is the deity they are wont to worship. This fact is usu ally overlooked by academic historians as well as by ordinary lay chroniclers. 1 Interview with Mr. Charles C. Nourse. —38— Antecedent conditions as well as causes control results in politics; factions no less than factors; popular prejudices as much as persons. The action of Iowa's delegation at Chicago was an issue of the character, traditions and local interests of the people they represented. Iowa had been a State but fourteen years. Her corporate existence did not span a quar ter of a century. Her population, consequently, was made up of pioneers. Public opinion among them consisted largely of the keen predilections or prejudices of their ancestral stocks, modified somewhat by the conditions of life in a frontier State. This complex of local prejudices and interests, together with the composition and strength of the political parties, must be understood if we are to appreciate correctly Iowa's action at Chicago. As neither the facts nor their significance has ever been directly pointed out, the conditions and various phases of the politics of Iowa in the formative days of the Republican party, prior to the pre-convention campaign of 1860, will be exhibited with considerable detail. 1. Abolitionists Aggressive but not Dominant. The stand taken by Iowa, or rather by many of her men of "light and leading," against the aggressions of the Slavocrats between 1850 and 1860 has created the notion that abolitionism generally prevailed throughout the State. This belief is mani fest in Major S. H. M. Byers' stirring account, John Brown in lowa.^ "His career during those Kansas days," we are told, "was watched in Iowa as no other State. . . . Iowa afforded him his first refuge place after contest. ... It was across her prairies and past her loyal towns he wandered by day and by night carrying liberty for the oppressed. . . He was so often and so closely connected with the State that people almost forgot that he was not an Iowa man."=' Von Hoist seems to give warrant for such an opinion when he says of the elections of 1854: "Iowa hitherto a veritable hot bed of dough-faces now reinforced the little band of 'aboli tionists' in the Senate by Harlan." ^ 1 Byers' Iowa in War Times, oh. 1. 2 lb., p. 18. 8 History, Vol. V, p. 78. -so- Sundry facts give color and substance to such a belief. Fore most-, perhaps, has been the prominent roles played by New Englanders and New Yorkers in the development of the State. In politics there have been few more important factors than Fitz Henry Warren, James W. Grimes. John A. Kasson, Jo- siah B. Grinnell, Nathaniel B. Baker, Judges Asahel W. and Nathaniel ^M. Hubbard, John H. Gear. William Larrabee and Horace Boies. In the courts Chaxles Mason, Stephen Whioher and Francis Springer. Austin Adams and John F. Dillon, stand out. In railway construction Gren-vUle iL Dodge and Peter A. Dey are pre-eminent. In journalism Charles Al drich, Coker F. Clarkson, Clark Dunham, A. B. F. Hildreth, Frank W. Palmer, and Jacob Rich have been conspicuo\is : and in education and religious life Father Asa Turner and the "Iowa Band,'' George F. ^Magoun, Samuel A. Howe, Josiah L. Pickard. A. S. Welch and Henry Sabin loom up. Not all who came out of Yankeedom were abolitionists by any means, but abolitionism tiourished most vigorously in New England and in the other States westward, peopled largely by her emigrant citizens. Furthermore, if not abolitionists in the strict sense of the term, they were almost certain to be stout oppouer.ts of the extension of slavery northward beyond the bounds set by the Ordinance of 1757 and the Compromise of 1?20. In the first decision renciered in lSo9 by the territorial su preme court of Iowa, Chief Justice Charles Mason, speaking for The court, declared that the great Ordinance and the Compromise worked a forfeiture of rights in rem in human kind within the State of Iowa — and squarely announced that "when the slave o"wner illegally restrains a human being of his liberty, it is proper that the laws . . . should exert their remedial interposition.'"" The Court realized the vital import of their holding — especially as they observe that its consideration was "not strictly regular" — but as the case involved "an important question which may ere long, if un settled, become an exciting one," they so decreed. In 1859 Judge Taney reversed Judge Mason in the ease of Dred Scott. 1 Iov:a Reports, VoL I, pp. 6-10. —40— There were soon numerous underground railway routes through Iowa — ^main lines, branches and spurs. Southern of ficers and slave catchers found their rights under the Fugi tive Slave Law nullified by Iowa 's ' ' law breakers. ' ' Governor Grimes himself wrote Mrs. Grimes concerning the first case in Burlington, namely the seizure and trial of the slave "Dick," June 23, 1855 : " I am sorry I am Governor of the State, for, although I can and shall prevent the State authorities and officers from interfering in aid of the Marshal, yet if not in office, I am inclined to think I should be a law breaker. . . . Judge [later Governor] Lowe was brought from Keokuk Monday in the night, and a writ of habeas corpus was ready to be served if the decision went against us. " ^ Fitz Henry Warren exhibited a willingness to take the law into his own hands in that affair.^ The exaltation of such leaders as Grimes and Harlan, the practical support of John Brown and his men,^ Governor Kirkwood 's ringing message on the Bar clay Coppoc affair, the extraordinary enlistments of Iowa's sons in the Union army — all these facts seem to indicate that abolitionism was rampant in Iowa in those troublesome times. The careers of some of Iowa's delegates to Chicago in 1860 confirm the notion that abolitionism was prevalent. The chairman of the delegation — Mr. William Penn Clarke — early acquired fame or infamy as a "nigger worshipper."* In 1850 he received 575 votes from the Abolitionists for Gover nor. He was a conductor on the Underground Railway. During the warfare in Kansas he openly and effectively as^- sisted Eli Thayer and Col. T. W. Higginson in transporting "Liberty" men and Sharpe's rifies to Tabor to protect the 1 Salter's Grimes, pp. 72-73. 2 lb., p. 73. Mr. George Frazee, Commissioner of the Court to hear the case, practically asserts that both Governor Grimes and Colonel Warren were prmcipal movers" in gathering "the crowd of sympathizers with the !infortunate fugitive." The abolitionist who was aiding "Dick" to escaoe was a New Englander, the celebrated botanist and historian of the Long Expedition, Dr. Edwm James, then living a few miles west of Burlington. See Frazee s article, "The Iowa Fugitive Slave Case," Annals, Vol/ IV, c!„ f •^S"?'"' T oo™Pa,ny for Harper's Ferry was organized and drilled at n? i.^^?r^o*' ¦'¦"¦^f • r Iowa furnished more men than any other State. See Gue s History of Iowa, Vol. II, p. 2. fn =r,Y?2"ii^fv,f°°^^'°".°* ^I-.P^^'i^.^'^ failure to make his appointment to speak in the campaign of 1848 The Gate City observes: "Wm Penn Clarke, candidate on the "codflsh and cabbage ticket," concluded to skip our city in his tour of love for the darkies." (October 26, 18«.) SOME OF IOWA'S DELEGATES Chicago Conyentlon, May lS-18, 1860 WM. P. HEPBURN, U. S. Representative CHARLES C. NOURSE, Attorney- General ot Iowa WM. PENN CLARKE, Supreme Court Reporter HENRY O'CONNOR, Attorney- General ol Iowa —41— freedom of the New England emigrants beyond the Missouri. In the Constitutional Convention of 1857 the irrepressible champion of the proposal to strike "white" from the supreme statute of Iowa and grant the electoral franchise to negroes was a doughty New Englander, R. L. B. Clarke of Mt. Pleas ant, Senator Harlan's home town. On the hustings another valiant champion of that measure was a dashing, brilliant son of Erin, Henry O'Connor of Muscatine, "the best Repub lican stump speaker in the State." ^ Mr. Jacob Butler, like wise of Muscatine, was another "Abolitionist" whose flag was up and his work on the Underground Railway known ; ^ like his law partner, O'Connor, he, too, was regarded as one of ' ' the ablest and most popular speakers in the state. ' ' ' An other Abolitionist in the delegation was the Rev. John Johns of Border Plains, Webster county, of whom more later. All five of those men ' ' died in the ditch ' ' at Chicago, voting for Wm. H. Seward for President. The delegation contained at least three other "Black" Republicans of the notorious species, all of them trainmen on the Underground Railway : a State Senator, M. L. McPherson, then of Winterset,* Mr. H. M. Hoxie of Des Moines, who had been an expert as to the best time and route for shipping "fleeces of wool"^ and was then secretary of the Repub lican State Central Committee ; and Mr. J. B. Grinnell, whose home in Grinnell was a way-station where "old Brown's" chattels were rebilled and trans-shipped.^ John Brown wrote a part of his Harper's Ferry proclamation to the Virginians while at Mr. Grinnell 's home.'' The forwardness of New Englanders in radical anti-slavery propaganda was shown at the annual session of the State Congregational Association in 1859. A resolution was passed June 2d expressing sympathy with brethren under arrest 1 Dubuque Express and Herald, September 3, 1858 : See also editorial in The Democratic Enquirer, Muscatine, October 7, 1858, under caption "Henry O'Connor is in Favor of Negro Suffrage." 2 Byers' Iowa in War Times, p. 20. 3 The Hamilton Freeman, September 24, 1858. 4 History of Madison county, p. 353. 5 J. B. Grinnell's Men and Events of Forty Years, p. 217. e lb., pp. 210-220. 7 Byers, lb., p. 24 ; also Grinnell, lb., p. 214. —42— in Ohio on account of their resistance to the Fugitive Slave Law, "an unchristian enactment" ; bidding them "be courage ous in enduring wrong," as their martyrdom would "call out and increase the humane and Christian opposition ... to the whole system of American Slavery, with all its attendant evils, whether established by the General Government, sanc tioned by the Supreme Court, or enforced by Federal Of ficers. " ^ It further called for the raising of funds to aid the martyrs. The resolution was deftly worded, so as to avoid ex plicit encouragement of law breaking but the Association was sharply criticized; the Dubuque Express and Herald per tinently asking, ' ' How can such a body of men find fault with any other body, whether composed of religionists or not, who may urge resistance to a law which they dislike. ' ' ^ ¦ The most vigorous type of abolitionism within the regular Republican party organization developed or "broke out" in Muscatine county — a county that has produced many lusty radicals in the course of its history. In the mass convention in Muscatine, January 7, 1860, to select their delegation to the Republican State Convention, in Des Moines, to choose the delegates to Chicago, the committee on resolutions "recom mended" Helper's Impending Crisis as a book "eminently worthy of an extensive circulation in this county." Coming close on the heels of the executions at Harper 's Ferry in which Iowa was but too closely involved, the Convention could have exceeded its display of belligerent radicalism only by com mending Mrs. Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin\. for the burden of Helpers' book was "Slavery Must be Abolished."^ Such an action, as may be imagined, did not pass without comment. The attitude of Iowa in the great political contest then ap proaching was a matter of national interest for her political complexion was by no means clear or dependable. A corres pondent of the New York Herald visited the State to determine the drifts of sentiment, his visit coinciding with the discussion pursuant to the Muscatine Resolutions. 'Writing from Iowa City, January 27th, he says : 1 See Proceedings In Muscatine Journal, June 6, 1859. 2 Dubuque Express and Herald, June 10, 1859. ^ . 2. ",^^ '""ch was now said [1859] and written about Helper's 'Impending wa^'" Ifc V™n''Hofst°"viF"'^ 8 ^^''™' ' ^^ """^^ '^^^ '" ^ different —43— Next to Michigan, Iowa is the most completely and thoroughly abolitionized State in the Northwest; it is therefore not surprising that Brown here found practical exponents of Sewardism, or that Helper finds champions in the deliberative councils of the rulers of the State. Whatever dodges the Eepublican party elsewhere may resort to to cover their participation directly or indirectly with Brown's attack on Harper's Perry or shield themselves from complicity with the circulation of Helper's book, the Eepublieans of Iowa feel themselves strong enough to throw off the mask and boldly avow their sympathy with the one and their approval of the other. . . . This [action at Muscatine] is the first public endorsement of the book I have yet heard of; but 1 have yet to meet with the first Eepublican here or elsewhere who has read the book who does not endorse it and recommend its circulation.! That the foregoing was a veracious report of impressions received we need not doubt, but the correspondent's conclus ions as to the prevalence and potency of abolitionism in Iowa or among Iowa's Republicans in 1860 are not to be accepted. The Abolitionists made up a very considerable company in respect of ability, character and courage, but they did not pre ponderate, even in the Republican party, let alone in the State. They were, in the language of our military experts, out-- flankers and skirmishers, or better, a flying squadron of re markable efficiency, but they were not the main body of troops. The mass of the Republicans were strongly anti-slavery in sentiment and theory, but hostile only to the extension of slavery north of Mason and Dixon's line, the Ohio river and 36° 30'. They were not clamorous for abolition in States where slavery was fixed or formal.^ There was no favorable echo of the resolution of the Muscatine Republicans so far as the writer can discover, either in the press or in party conven tions. But while Abolitionists, as we shall see, did not prevail in the State at large or predominate in the Republican party, their affiliation with the Republicans and their activity in propaganda put on the party the onus and odium thence re sulting. The Democratic press of Iowa teems with screaming 1 New York Herald, February 19, 1860. 2 In the debate, February 23, 1857, on the proposal to strike "White" from the State constitution, Mr. Wm. Penn Clarke in repelling the charge that his party was fathering abolitionism, said : "I understand the doctrine of the republican party to be opposition to the extension of slavery." Debates of the Constitutional Convention, vol. II, p. 675. • —44— epithets: "Abolitionist," "Amalgamationists," "Miscegena- tionists," "Black Republicans," "Freedom Shriekers," "Nig ger Thieves," "Nigger Worshippers," "Wooliesv" hurtle through their pages ad nauseam. Their editors see frightful visions of "white and negro equality."^ The organ of Buchanan's administration, The Washington (D. C.) Union, pronounced Senator Harlan's sober presentation of the north's objections to the aggressions of the southern leaders in the Senate, March 27,1856,"an elaborate defence of abolitionism" and declared the "one great object" in his speech to be to establish "equality between the two races. "^ The Republi can leaders of Iowa were more or less indifferent to such flouts and taunts. Nevertheless one perceives an extreme sensitive ness to such accusations'— the rank and file and most of the leaders constantly declare their hostility to abolitionism. Not only were they sensitive concerning the charge of abolitionism but the dominant men of the party realized that the potent fact chiefly determining the continuance or cessation of Re publican supremacy in Iowa was no less dread of abolitionism than dread of slavery. This was a basic condition and assidu ous attention thereto was imperative. The reason therefor, arose out of the ancestry of Iowa's population which we must understand if we are to realize the significance of the conduct of Iowa in the great Council in the Wigwam. 2. Southern Stocks and Prejudices Predominant. The immigration prior to 1850 came chiefly from south of Mason and Dixon's line and the Ohio river. Between 1850 and 1860 the settlers hailed mostly from southern portions of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, the major number of which were either natives of, or descendants of pioneer emigrants from slave States' who in their northern habitats were by trade closely affiliated with the southern peoples. There was at the same time a strong infusion of energetic northern stocks from New England and New York, and of their westernized descendants from northern portions of Penn sylvania and Ohio, and from Michigan and Wisconsin. The influx of the northerners reached high tide between 1855 and 1 See editorial In Express and Herald, Dubuque, September 3, 1858. 2 Quoted in Iowa Democratic Enquirer, Muscatine, April 10, 1856. -45- 1860. It is the popular notion that the latter elements pre dominated in Iowa prior to 1860 ; and, it is true, they were the energizing forces and aggressive factors in public discussion and in the "forward" or progressive movements of those days, both in industry and politics. But they did not constitute the preponderant political population.^ Coincident with the incoming of the native Americans was a heavy immigration into Iowa of foreign born peoples, mostly Germans and Irish. In 1850 the native born inhabitants con stituted 89 per cent, of the aggregate population and in 1860 they had declined to 84.2 per cent. Of the 21,232 foreign bom in 1850, the Germans made up 7,152 and the Irish 4,885, both together constituting 56 per cent, of the total. In 1860 the Irish numbered 28,072 and the Germans 38,555, making 63 per cent, of the 106,081 foreign bom citizens. The total population of Iowa in 1860 numbered only 674,913. It is manifest that if the political party in power in Iowa had a narrow margin of popular support the foreign immigrants could easily control the fate of the predominant party if, for any reason, the foreign bom citizens were clannish and were aggravated into political concert by threatened partizan action adverse to their welfare. The geographical and industrial distribution of the popula tion was a potent factor in the politics of the ante bellum period. Speaking generally, the settlers of southern anteced ents, although scattered thickly in the northern counties, pre vailed in the southern half of the State and in the interior and western counties. For the most part they were farmers, much given to hunting and trapping and but comparatively little to commercial or manufacturing pursuits. They lived along the streams and in the wooded lands and pursued farming in an easy-going fashion. The Yankees, on the other hand, were found mainly in the northern and eastern counties, inhabiting the cities and towns, pre-eminent in the advancement of educa tion, especially in promoting schools and colleges, following commercial and industrial pursuits, or farming the uplands or 1 In The Annals, Vol. VII, pp. 367-379, 446-465, April and July, 1906, the writer has set forth some facts in Justification of the assertions above — reprinted with additions under caption Did Emigrants from New England First Settle Iowa. —46— prairies with the latest devices in agricultural machinery. The foreign bom population for the most part inhabited the counties bordering on the Mississippi. They were more numerous relatively in the northern counties than in the southern. Thus in 1850 the foreigners in Dubuque county constituted 40 and in 1860 42 per cent, of the population, whereas in Des Moines county (containing Burlington) they were only 15 and 21 per cent, for the respective decennial censuses. In Davis and in Dallas counties the foreign bom amounted in each county to but 3 per cent. Even in Polk county, with the capital city, the native bom made up 90 per cent, of the population.^ The political, religious and social animosities and prejudices of such a mixed population under the conditions of intercom munication of those days were in the nature of things lively and various, and usually stubborn if not violent. The primary prejudices of the native stocks related to slavery. Their secondary prejudices pertained to the foreign immigrant. The people of southern antecedents had left the south main ly for two reasons. Either economic pressure or hostility to slavery, or both, had induced them to emigrate. The major number had come north to better their economic condition. Many would haye brought slaves with them had their owner ship and control been feasible. A large proportion were not 1 Below are given the returns of nativity for six counties on the Mis sissippi and for six counties bordering on the Des Moines river for 1850 and 1860 : Counties Allamakee Dubuque Clinton Scott Des Moines Lee Davis Mahaska Jasper — Polk Dallas Boone • Includes some unknown. 1860 o 637 ,512,077,458,008,514,186,885,366 ,399 842 667 140 4,301 525 1,520 1,9552,287 71 103 25 114 12 OSS 18 40 1925 1512 1—2—22.S1 9 8,295 18,20613,56516,70615,53622,74718,29614,109 9,437 10,498 5,082 3,999 3,942 12,958 5,8739,2534,0756,485 4687074t5 1,127 42 21 22 354.6 10 s 6.5 —47— particularly concerned about the matter, but were strongly pro-slavery in their sympathies. The more influential and industrious immigrants from the south, however, were de cidedly hostile to the extension of slavery, because their ad versity in their ancestral States was due to the pressure of slavery and the severe and relentless social discrimination against white labor. Small farming was almost impossible in the south and decent and independent social existence other wise was so difficult as tO' be virtually impossible.^ The agita tion for the extension of slavery and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise aroused the intense antagonism of such emigrants in Iowa. It was this element among the southern stocks that joined forces with the New England folk and elected James W. Grimes Governor in 1854, to the utter astonishment of the country at large. Thosie who emigrated from the south because of personal hostility to slavery, were usually out-and-out Abolitionists. Such notably were the Friends or Quakers who for the most part came into Iowa in considerable numbers direct from Mary land and North Carolina or roundabout via Ohio and Indiana. The Friends church at Salem in Henry county was known far and wide as the "Abolition Meeting House" ^ and their settle ment at Springdale, as already noted, was John Brown 's ren dezvous, previous to his attack on Harper's Ferry. There was at least one representative of the Quakers on the delegation to Chicago, Senator M. L. McPherson of Winterset. He was a North Carolinian and an Abolitionist. One of the most in teresting men among Iowa's delegates at Chicago was Rev. 1 The following extracts from an able speech of John Edwards of Chari ton in the Constitutional Convention of 1857 illustrate the paragraph above : "I am glad that I have an opportunity here of speaking upon this slavery question. Born in a slave State [Virginia], educated with all the prejudices of a slaveholder, I have been contending for twenty years with the institution of slavery. It was slavery that drove me from my native .State." Debates, vol. II, p. 681. 'There were Democrats in my section of the State who took the ground that slavery was right ; that it was a great moral and political blessing and that it ought to be extended throughout the Union." p. 683. ". . slavery is a foul political curse upon the institutions of our country ; it is a curse upon the soil of the country, and worse than that it is a curse upon the poor, free laboring white man. . . they have been driven away [from Virginia] in consequence of the degradation attached to labor as the result of this system of slavery. That is the reason that Virginia is becoming depopulated. . . ". p. 682. See also speech of George Ells of Davenport, March 2, p. 907. 2 See testimony and arguments of attorneys in "An Iowa Fugitive Slave ¦Case " Annals, VI, pp. 16, 27, 30-31. —48— John Johns of Border Plains, Webster county. He was a native of Kentucky, an old line Whig, a Free Will Baptist preacher and an Abolitionist. From his youth he had stead fastly promulgated his views, at camp-meetings and on the hustings, alike, in Ohio and Indiana before coming to Iowa in 1848. But Abolitionists were extremists and did not dominate in Iowa's southern stock. The preponderant number was hostile alike to the extension of slavery and to its abolition and the resulting Negro Equality involved or dreaded. "We hated an abolitionist as we hated a nigger, ' ' wrote a pioneer preacher of Iowa to the writer a short time since.^ Grimes was keenly alive to this stubborn prejudice in 1854 when he sought the suffrages of the people in his candidacy for Grovemor. He took pains to guard against the imputations of his opponents to the effect that he would echo "the mad-dog cry of abolition ism."^ The heated debates in the Constitutional Convention of 1857, over the admissibility of the testimony of negroes in courts, their rights to property, their admission to the State and the Franchise, show us how deeply rooted and potent were the prejudices of the southerners in Iowa's public opinion. The proposal to strike "white" from the Constitution and thus admit the negro to the Franchise was overwhelmingly defeated at the polls. It obtained a majority in but two thinly settled counties, Humboldt and Mitchell, the former near and the latter on the border of Minnesota and the latter over fifty miles back from the river ; receiving approximately, in the State at large only 14,000 votes out of 64,000 cast.^ The numbers and political significance of the southern stocks is indicated forcefully in the following observations of Daniel F. Miller a Marylander, who played a conspicuous part in the pioneer politics of Iowa from 1839 to 1860, being the first 1 The correspondent quoted above, was bom in Newark, Ohio, near the center of the State. His parents were Virginians. He told the writer once that he had almost attained his majority before he began to realize that people were or could be born elsewhere than In Virginia, if not In Ohio. 2 Salter's Grimes, p. 49. 3 The exact figures cannot be given as the returns from some of the counties seem to be incomplete. See "Record of Elections" on file In the office of the Sec. of State. —49— "Whig Congressman from southern lowa,^ one of the organizers of the Republican party and the party's first Presidential elector in the campaign of 1856. His communication was indited near the fclose of the Fremont campaign. "When you are iflforflied, sir, that full one-third of all the voters in this (Hall's2) district were born in Kentucky, Tennessee, "Virginia, North Carolina, and other slave holding States, and that in fact, a very large majority of this portion of our voters are the most ardent and active Eepublieans, and fought best for the defeat of Hall, you will be able to properly appreciate how much of the non-slaveholding portion of the South hate the extension of slavery, and ^ill speak out their sentiments on the sub.iect where they can do it with safety. Having come to Iowa to enjoy the blessings of free labor and progressive industry and by experience learned how superior are Free Institutions to those of Slavery, we never can nor will consent, but oppose to the bitter end, eveiy effort of the Slave Oligarchy to extend Slavery over our Sister Kansas. The Missouri Compromise was the commpn charter of Freedom for both Iowa and Kansas, and, though the letter of it has been violated as to Kansas, you may rest assured we will maintain the equity and spirit of it at aU hazards-^ Three instances of the potency of southern prejudices in Iowa's politics in ante bellum days may be cited because they exhibit in an interesting, fashion the practical consideration given them by some of the men who played prominent roles not only in the struggles between 1856 and 1860 but at Chicago. Mr. Charles C. Nourse, a Marylander by birth, was one of the original advocates of Abraham Lincoln's nomina tion among the Iowa Delegation, and he ascribes the original impetus to his career in State politics to the adverse prejudices of the southern stock in Iowa. In an interview with the writer, he says: "In 1852 I was elected county prosecutor of 'Van Buren county as a "Whig. In 1854 I was renominated. The Free Soilers were numerous enough in the north half of the .county to cause the" Convention to put a Free Soiler by the name of French on the ticket. For several reasons I was strong enough to win on my own strength, but my friends soon told me that I could not carry the Free Soiler along 'with me. 1 Wm H. Thompson, Democrat, was flrst seated, the canvassing board having excluded the Mormon vote of Kanesville, which Fitz Henry Warren had secured for the T^Hiisrs ; Miller contpsted, the election was voided, and at a, stiecial election JUiUer regained his seat. 2 Augustus Hall. !< The St. Charles Intelligencer, October 2. 1866. ' , ^ 4 —50-- You see a great number of the. people of Da-vis and Van Buren counties had moved to Iowa when they supposed that region was a part of Missouri. In the contest over the boundary, the decision was largely in our favor. The fact that those south erners were in Iowa, did not, however, reconstruct their notions or ways of thinking. A Free Soiler to them was an abolition ist — an equal suffragist who proposed to force on us negro equality, both political and social. I worked manfully on be half of French but I could not disabuse their minds and I was beaten. It was my defeat that induced my friends to make me Clerk of the House of Representatives in 1854 as a sort of compensation or consolation prize. "^ Mr. John A. Kasson, although a New Englander, had spent six years in law practice in St. Louis, 1851-57, before coming to Iowa (hence his prior preference for Judge Bates for Presi dent in 1860). His political sagacity and capacity for gen eralship were so soon exhibited that in 1858, he was made chairman of the Republican State Central Committee. In the gubernatorial canvass of 1859 he planned an extended itin erary for Kirkwood in the counties of southern Iowa and writing him July 18th, about the pitfalls to be avoided and local prejudices to be dealt with, he advised: "You are doubtless informed that the population of the southern tier [of counties] generally, commencing with Davis and Wapello and west, embrace people from southern Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, some from Kentucky and Maryland, a few from Ten nessee. . . Those people are generally scared at the idea of abolitionism, particularly in Davis, Appanoose, Decatur and Wayne. It will be well for you to run your Maryland birth a little down there and to pitch into Democ racy, the real agitators of the slavery question who have thrust it upon the country perpetually since 1844, and have refused to leave it quiet in any part of the country not even north of 36:30."" Six months later the correspondent of Horace Greeley's- Tribune writing from Des Moines (Jan. 9, 1860) concerning 1 Interview with Mr. Nourse, Ibid. 2 The cjtsitlons above a,nd others subsequently given unless otherwise stated are to he found chiefly in MSS., correspondence, memoranda and newspaper files m the Aldrich Collections of the State Historical Depart ment at Des Moines. —51— Governor Kirkwood 's Inaugural Address, a copy of which he had secured in advance of the delivery, observes: "His remarks on the John Brown matter are satisfactory and are all that could be expected from a Marylander by birth; a Democrat by association up to 1854, and a successful can vasser before the people His sentiments, I think, are reflective of the tone of feeling in the northwest in the Republican party." 3. The Clash of Native and Foreign Prejudices. The prejudices of the native born population adverse to the foreign born immigrant developed mainly in three forms: First, dread lest the foreigner should gain undue power in politics, and promote his interests at the expense of the gen eral welfare; second, antagonism to the doctrines and prac tices of the Catholic church; and third, opposition to liberty or license in the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors as beverages. In such matters human nature is so constituted that if greatly aroused race prejudice, religious fanaticism and extreme measures for social reform engender fierce animosities that sweep aside equity, logic and law and utterly disconcert politicians calculating the force and direction of the normal currents in the spheres of human interest. KNOW-NOTHINGISM AND THE REPUBLICANS. There seems to be a general opinion that the Know-Nothing or American movement, that incorporated the native prej udice against foreigners in the older eastern and southern States in the fourth and fifth decades of the last century, did not seriously affect Iowa. Discussing the significance of Grimes' success in 1854, Mr. Rhodes says: "The Know- Nothing wave had not reached lowa."^ Recently a writer has told us : " The American party reached the zenith of its power and influence [in Iowa] in 1855;"- and, again, "The passing of Know-Nothingism from the political stage is closely associated with the origin of the Republican party "^ (at Iowa City February 22, 1856). Govemor Grimes' vigorous decla- 1 Rhodes' History. lb., Vol. II, p. 59. 2 Mr. Louis Pelzer, "The Origin and Organization of the Republican Party in Iowa," Iowa Journal of History and Politics, Vol. IV, 495. 3 lb., p. 503. —52— ration at Burlington in January, 1856, that "Anti-Know- Nothingism and Anti-Slavery must be two great planks of the Republican organization"^ and other like expressions from him are cited to indicate that Know-Nothingism was not supreme in politics in Iowa as it was in States of the east and the south. Such a conclusion, however, "while justi fied in considerable measure seriously misleads as to the prev alence and force of Know-Nothingism in Iowa during its fiow and ebb in the country at large. Thete is reason for thinking that the tide of anti-foreign feeling overflowed into Iowa between 1852 and 1856 with some vigor.'' The events precede too much the period in which we are immediately concerned to justify their recital here, but the receding waves disturbed very decidedly the currents of party strife in Iowa and constituted one of the decisive factors, in the writer's judgment, in bringing about the nomination of Abraham Lincoln. The anti-foreign influence in party politics in Iowa and the anxiety of the politicians respecting its force and manifesta tion were pronounced up to the outbreak of the Civil War. Editors and politicians,; then, as now, expressed views publicly that indicated what they wanted or thought ought to be rather than what they thought actually was the case. The acts and the private conversation and correspondence of the political leaders spoke louder than formal words designed to hold or atti?act the doubtful voter or delude the opposition. They show us that political forces of great potency may operate effectually and yet not receive much public recognition such as ceremonial consideration in conventions in the way of party resolutions and tickets. Moreover, the dread of an indefinite, unpretentious but prevalent and perverse force 1 lb., p. 504. 2 Col. Joseph Eiboeck, editor since 1874 of Der Iowa Staats Anzeiger of Des Moines, spent his youth in Dubuque between 1849 and 1859. In a statement (MSS.) given the writer, August 12, 1907, after describing a physical encounter between the editor of The Express and Herald and the postmaster of Dubuque, also editor of The Observer, a paper devoted to Know-Nothinpism Cn nnel Eiboeck savs of rievelopments in that city • "But the Know Nothing days were stormy ones. In 1853 and '4 there was scarcely a day but fist fights and rows between Know Nothing rowdies and German and Irish born citizens took place. Every house In which a foreign born citizen lived was chalked with an X and thus marked for espionage and persecution, those of Irish and German Catholics In par ticular." —53— disturbs all calculations producing sharp reactions within party lines, to the distraction and woe of party organizers. Politicians and political parties indicate their perplexity as to the best course to pursue respecting an "issue" that burns in the public mind as much by silence as by public pronouncement thereupon or deft or timid reference thereto. In 1855 the Democrats of Iowa spoke out plumply against the anti-foreign propaganda, denouncing the attempts to re strict the rights of naturalized citizens and bespeaking re sistance similar to that accorded the Alien and Sedition laws.^ The Whigs were silent. At the formal organization of the Republican party at Iowa City, February 22, 1856, there was again silence. Silence upon that subject was essential to success but it did not allay the suspicions of the Germans. Mr. L. Mader, editor of Die Freie Presse of Burlington had joined the original chorus of calls for the organization of an anti-slavery party in Iowa. Nevertheless the Germans found the Convention far from congenial.^ Their resolution de claring in favor of the naturalization laws then in force was refused consideration, notwithstanding Govemor Grimes favored it.' The result was that they withdrew from the Convention. Three or four days later, Mr. Mader with Theodore Guelich, editor of Der Demokrat of Davenport, and J. Bittman, editor of Die Staats Zeitung of Dubuque, jointly issued a formal letter to their fellow countrymen in the State, exposing the treatment they had received and urging opposition to the new" party until it was purged of its malev olent elements.* This episode has not been considered as significant or serious because of the predominant influence of Govemor Grimes in giving color, tone and direction to the growth of the Republican party. It was, nevertheless, in dicative of a high degree of discontent and suspiciousness among the foreign population, which, did not disappear until the clash of arms on Southern Battle-fields demonstrated that 1 See Platform Section 7 : Falrall's Manual of Iowa Politics, Vol. I, p. 39. 2 See letter of "Germania" in The Iowa Democratic Enquirer (Musca tine), March 13, 1856. 3 See Grimes' letter to Salmon P. Chase, March 28, 1856, Salter's Grimes, pp. 79-80. i Daily Journal, Muscatine, March 17, 1856. —54— love of the stars and stripes was a common impulse alike of scions of Cavalier and Puritan and sons of Erin and Ger mania.^ Govemor Grimes lived in Burlington where Gei^nans were both numerous and justly influential; and although he recog nized that the partisans of American exclusiveness had real grievances in some of the eastern States and were a beneficent force in breaking up the old party alignments that had be come irrelevant as respects the gr^at issue of slavery, he fairly abominated Know-Nothingism as a principle of public policy.^ But we err greatly if we conclude that his broad views animated or controlled all the Republican leaders of Iowa in those formative days. On the contrary the reverse is largely true of the majority of the prominent men of the State. Fifty miles west of the river, the Republican leaders and anti-slavery men were saturated with the sentiments of Know-Nothingism. In Davis county, Mr. James B. Weaver, then an active young la-wyer of Bloomfield, first became kno-wn as an ardent advocate of American principles. Judge William Loughridge of Oskaloosa was Iowa 's member of the committee of correspondence of the Know-Nothings that met at Phila delphia on June 15, 1855, and signed the "call" for the National Convention in Cincinnati, November 30, 1855.' R. L. B. Clarke of Mt. Pleasant * and John Edwards, editor of The Patriot of Chariton, were avowed Know-Nothings;^ Mr. Wm. Penn Clarke, who was a delegate to the National Repub lican Convention in Pittsburg in 1856, who had general charge of the Republican campaign in Iowa that year, and in 1860 was the chairman of Iowa's delegation at Chicago, was a noteworthy leader among the Know-Nothings, being sent to 1 The Germans of Iowa claim the honorable distinction of offering the first troops ("The Burlington Rifles," Christian L. Mathies, Captain) to aid in suppressing the threatening rebellion in January, 1861. See Eiboeck, Die Dutchen von Iowa, p. 84. Major Byers is not disinclined to concede the claim. Iowa in War Times, pp. 39-41. 2 Concerning the Know-Nothing Convention in Iowa City, March 5th Grimes wrote Clarke : "I was so disgusted with their proceedings . . . that I have disliked to read, talk, write, or hear about it." Burlington April 3, 1866. 3 See The Oskaloosa Herald, September 14, 1855. i Debates of the Constitutional Convention, 1857, Vol. II, p. 862. 6 lb.. Vol. I, p. 187. —55— the celebrated Grand Council that met at Philadelphia oh February 19, 1856. Wells Spioer, editor of The Tipton Advertiser, was a staunch American and outspoken in his advocacy of a policy of foreign exclusion, going so far as to express regret at the failure of the Americans in the Repub lican Convention at Iowa City to express themselves vigor ously when they had the majority to do so. Iowa probably never had a more acute observer and tactician or a more re sourceful political leader than the late Judge N. M. Hubbard of Cedar Rapids. He was one of the original movers in the organization of the Republican party, he and Mr. C. C. Nourse being the secretaries of the Convention at Iowa City. Writing Penn Clarke, December 24, 1855, from Marion, Judge Hub bard asked whether "we — republicans^ — had not better call our State Convention at the same time the K. N. 's have theirs. I believe a fusion is necessary and must be had. ' ' Two weeks later (January 9, 1856) he wrote, "If we can secure you [Clarke] the nomination of the Republicans (for Attorney General) and the other good men from the K. N.'s and Repub licans about equal, can't your Convention resolve to make no nomination and support ours? I am satisfied unless we can make a union on the Nebraska question of the Republicans and the K. N. 's we shall all be in danger of getting our bot tom knocked out . . Let us do all possible to effect a fusion." Were his proposals realized? Not entirely pro forma but in substance and effect they were. The Germans, as we have seen, revolted because they felt that the Convention was dominated by Know-Nothings. The Democrats flouted the Republicans with the charge of being mere Know-Nothings in masquerade.^ On March 5th, the American Convention of 100 delegates or representatives, met in Iowa City and "confirmed" the ticket agreed upon by the Republican Convention two weeks preceding, except that different national electors were nominated.^ Mr. John Mahin 1 Referring April 12th to Mr. Martin L,. Morris, the Republican nominee for State Treasurer who was elected by the Democrats in 1852, The Guthne Sentinel of Panora said that he owed his present nomination to Know Nothing Woolies of Iowa." See also Dubuque Herald, September 18, 1869, editorial, German Republicaiis of Wisconsin and Iowa. 2 Letter dated at Iowa City, March 6, 1856, to The Des Moines Valley Whig, March I2th. — se lf of Muscatine on February 29th, placed "at the mast head of The Journal, the American National Ticket of which he said, "it is the best the party could have chosen", together with the "Republican State Ticket" and the "American City Ticket." On March 15th, without comment, he removed the first. The Republicans however through many of the party organs, denied the c^iarore o" collusion stoutly. The Cincinnati Times, however, declared that three out of the four nominees on the Republican ticket in Iowa for State officers were Americans.^ The Americans became restless at the recreancy of the Republican press. Judge Loughridge in some indig nation wrote Clarke concerning the course of the Republican editors: "The State ticket nominated by both parties, they denominate the 'Republican' ticket instead of claiming, as the fact is, that it is a 'Union' or 'Peoples' Ticket'." He informs Clarke that immediately following The Oskaloosa Herald's declaration or pledge that Mr. S. A. Rice, the can didate for Attorney General was opposed to Fillmore and a Republican, "the Davis County American paper took Mr. Rice 's name from the ticket. ' ' It was, no doubt, in part anxiety concerning the consequences of this alleged double dealing and the revolts occurring or threatened, that induced N. M. Hubbard on March 28th to write Clarke: "What do you think of politics now? Are we going to unite or burst all up? Give me some advice. I am editing a paper. I hardly know what to do." On the same day, Governor Grimes wrote Salmon P. Chase of Ohio: "The Fillmore nomination will damage us considerably in this State, and I fear will render the result doubtful. I think it will affect us here as much as in any other State in the Union, especially in the southern part, where the people are mostly southern by birth. ' ' ^ His anticipations were verified. An exceedingly interesting sign that Know-Nothingism was a blazing phenomenon high in the political heavens of Iowa in 1856, even, if it be true, that it had passed its zenith in 1855, was the commotion produced in the ranks of the Demo cratic party in March, 1856, by the public charge and sub- 1 Quoted In The Guthrie Sentinel, September 13, 1856. 2 Salter's Grimes, p. 80. —57— stantial demonstration that George W. McCleary, then Secre tary of State, was a member of a Know-Nothing Lodge in good standing. He was a popular official, and a prospective candidate for renomination, with no serious opposition ap parent. The exposure seems to have paralyzed him and dazed his party friends, for he soon formally announced that for sundry reasons he would not be a candidate for re-election, and thanked his friends for their kindness to him in the past, etc.^ SENATOR HARLAN'S FBAKS AND PROPOSAL. In some respects, the most striking e"videnoe the writer has come upon, showing the existence in those formative days of a strong undertow of anxiety among Republicans of Iowa, lest the influx of Europeans untrained in the arts of self- government, should overwhelm our free institutions is the following letter of Senator Harlan to Clarke, dated at Wash ington, D. C, December 1, 1856 : "It probably has occurred to you that the construction of four parallel lines of railroads through Iowa, wiU enable the opposition to flood the State with foreigners, who will prob ably swamp us at the polls in 1858 and 1860. Would it not be well to pro-vide a Registry law by act of the Legislature or to require it in the Constitution? Unless something of this kind is done, I fear we will be unable to maintain our position in the galaxy of Republican States." Several facts make Senator Harlan's letter conclusive proof of the prevalence of the fears that made up the warp and woof of the American creed or cult. First it was' written three weeks foUo-wing the victory of his party, both in Iowa and generally throughout the north in the Fremont campaign. Second, he suggested the consideration of the wisdom of act ing adversely towards the promotion of railroad construction in Iowa when the whole population of the State was feverishly pushing their congressmen to advance Iowa's interests' by federal land grants. Third, he exhibited his proposal when the agitation for constitutional revision was culminating and he must have contemplated serious consideration of the limi- 1 The Daily Journal (Muscatine), March 6, 1856. —58— tations affecting the electoral privileges of the naturalized citizens in the forthcoming convention. Fourth, he wrote the letter when he was under no stress of mind as to his own political fortunes, his term as Senator not expiring until 1860, three years thereafter. Fifth, he communicated his sugges tion to an active, ambitious leader, not only of his own party but of the American or Know-Nothing division thereof, and a known aspirant for senatorial honors. Senator Harlan was not a trimmer in politics nor a tight-rope-walking type of statesman, but one who thought earnestly upon public matters and spoke guardedly. We may conclude that he suffered from no hallucinations as to the political conditions of his constituents and urged no temporizing expedient for the sake of short-sighted party advantage. The letter was not made public at the time but it must have been written with a con scious expectation that it would influence Mr. Clarke and through him the leaders of the party in the State, first in legislative halls and second, in the constitutional convention in which Mr. Clarke was to be facile princeps. PROTESTANT VERSUS CATHOLIC. The second great fact that provoked the animosities of the native bom immigrants was dread of Catholicism. Here again ancestral traditions and geographical and industrial distribu tion mainly account for the prejudices and performances of Iowa's Republicans between 1856 and 1860. Excepting the French, German and Irish the pioneers were chiefly communi cants or adherents of Baptist, Campbellite or Christian, Methodis't, and Presbyterian churches ; these churches in 1850 numbering 139 all told. Congregationalists, Episcopalians and Lutherans, Moravians and Quakers made up the balance of a vigorous protestant population, the reported numbers of all their churches being only 31 in 1850. The Catholics were reported as having 18 churches in that year and 16 of that number were located in counties on the Mississippi. There were none farther west than Johnson and Wapello counties.^ Such disproportions in relative numbers and such localiza- 1 U. S. Census, i860. —59— tion in the regions controlled by the natives and foreign citi zens and sundry other conditions engendered strenuous com petitive proselytism and much malevolence. In those days churchmen and preachers generally believed in their creeds intensely and enforced or sought to enforce their tenets strictly. Those professing religious faith or in the active affiliation with its adherents did not await a morning news paper to determine their belief and state of mind, but felt firmly and were terribly in earnest. Congregations were in truth churches militant. Now the mystery, the silent and the self-sufficient procedure of the priests of the Catholic church created huge phantasies in the minds of the Protes tants. To nine out of ten churchmen in Iowa the Catholic church was an organization they had known or heard of somewhat "down east" but which was almost unfamiliar to the pioneers west of the river counties. Moreover the potent influence of the foreign citizen in politics — bidden and pushed thereto, be it noted, usually by designing and unscrupulous native politicians in the cities — and the coincidence of the Catholic faith with their political 'activity aggravated and superheated the natural antipathy of the native American stocks against the Catholics. The foremost factor in this anti-Catholic or anti-foreign propEiganda were the preachers and adherents of the Methodist church, the dominant church in point of numbers and influence in Iowa . prior to 1860. Senator Harlan was a conspicuous member and staunch pro moter of the faith of that church, a fact that brought him many flings from anti-Know-Nothing critics.^ Two illustra tions taken from the first manifestations of Republicanism in Guthrie county "will substantiate the foregoing and at the samfe time show how intimajtely the persons involved in the fateful decision at Chicago May 18, 1860, were likewise pre- "viously associated. On March 16, 1856, the Republicans of Guthrie county had their first convention at Panora, the county seat. Their com mittee on resolutions reported the following declaration of principles among others, which was adopted apparently with- 1 See letter of Col. Louis Schade of Burlington in Iowa Weekly State Reporter, June 8, 1859. —60— out dissent: "That we stand for the constitution and the principles therein guaranteed, and we deny the right of foreign despotisms^ — ecclesiastical or otherwise, to interfere with the rights or dictate the action of Freemen in the exer cise of religious or poUtioal principles granted to us by that sacred instrument. ' ' ^ One of the committee signing that dec laration was Thomas Seeley, who a few months later was chosen by Dallas, Guthrie and Polk counties as their delegate in the Constitutional Convention of 1857, defeating M. M. Crocker a lawyer of Ft. Des Moines, who later had a briUiant army career in the Civil War. Thomas Seeley was one of the original Lincoln men at the Chicago Convention. On the very day the Convention met at Panora, Judge James Hen derson of Panora, a member of the Methodist church wrote a letter setting forth his ' ' disgust "with members and ministers of the M. E. church. I have good reason to believe that there is a large majority of them [who] have joined that disgrace ful organization commonly called Know-Nothings."^ THE MAINE LIQUOR LAW. The advent of the Republican party in Iowa was coinci dent with the culmination of a campaign for the suppression of intemperance — a vexatious problem that always tends to split political parties asunder. Here again the cleavage of interests and opinions broke in large part along racial lines'; yet with much confusion and counter rifts within the native citizenship. The native stocks in religious professions were as we have seen, chiefly Baptists, Campbellites' or Christians, Methodists and Presbyterians. These forces with the aggres sive Congregationalists constituted the vanguard in the agita tion that resulted in 1855 and 1856 in the adoption of the "Maine law" prohibiting the manufacture and sale of spirit uous liquors except via a local State agent for "mechanical, medicinal and sacramental purposes." The Whigs in 1854 had first declared for such a law. The Republicans in 1856 became sponsors for prohibition as they have been ever since. It is doubtless true in the large, as Mr. Rhodes declares, 1 The Guthrie Sentinel, March 22, 1866. 2 lb., April 19, 1856. —61— that "All the advocates of the Maine law were anti-slavery men," but his conclusion that "it is not apparent that the cause of freedom lost by union with the cause of prohibition ' '^ is to be accepted with some hesitation. The opponents of slavery or of its extension in Iowa as in nearly all the States of the northwest, made a complex of exceedingly heterogeneous groups that were to each other, — slavery aside — ^mutually re- pellant particles. This was notably so in Ohio, Michigan and Iowa, where Germans were numerous and the advocates of- temperance aggressive and in the first and third States men tioned more or less preponderant. Needless to observe this paternalistic legislation was re garded by the French, Germans, Iris'h, Hollanders' and Swiss in Iowa as an outrageous interference with some of their most cherished rights of personal liberty and utterly inde fensible. Their resistance was pronounced and continuous. Very soon the Republicans began to "weaken" the law in order to placate the contentious Germans. First the county agent was abolished; then, in 1857 "home-made" cider and wine were made salable; and in 1858 wine and beer were de fined as non-intoxicants and breweries authorized and saloons for the sale thereof legitimized. But notwithstanding all parties, friends and opponents of severe measures, were dis satisfied. The effect of the espousal of the Maine law upon the party strength of the Republicans cannot be definitely measured, but unquestionably it was adverse. Both German and Irish immigrants at first very largely, if not universally, joined the Democratic party. Their intense hatred of governmental oppression and slavery, however, made them turn toward the Whigs and then the Republicans. The Know-Nothing move ment and radical temperance legislation produced a violent revulsion. Slavery was abhorrent; but so was such sump tuary legislation. The former was an evil remote and only vaguely felt; the latter was an immediate palpable outrage, depriving them of rights and pleasures as dear as life itself. Twenty and thirty years later when the Republicans alligned themselves with advocates of such restrictive legislation thou- 1 History of the U. S., Vol. II, p. 60. —62— sands of Germans in eastern Iowa deserted the party with the result that in 1890 the firet Democratic govemor since 1854 was elected. On the other hand the party's effort to placate the Germans alienated the extremists who insisted upon rigor ous enforcement of the prohibitory law. 4. Smouldering Fires in 1857-1858. In the Constitutional Convention of 1857, the irritation and suspicions incident to Know-Nothingism, smouldered and on occasion blazed out. Members charged each other with adherence to its creed and with being beneficiaries of its prop aganda. It is clear from the debates that the local groups or lodges were then inclined to affiliate or fuse as readily with the Democrats as with the Republicans, depending upon local conditions. When the Committee reported Article 3 on "Right of Suffrage," recommending almost no change in the preliminary residence required, Mr. Wm. Penn Clarke urged that the time be increased from six months to one year in the State and from twenty days to six months in the county. In his speech, we find a distinct echo of Senator Harlan's letter previously quoted. "Within the next ten years," he said, "it is more than probable that we shall have an influx of population into our State of those who have no interest with our people, and who will leave us when the public works [R. R.'s] are completed, which induced them to come here. If the members of this Convention desire to place the people of this State at the mercy of this class of population, well and good; they can do so. But I do not mean that it shall be done with my consent."^ The first proposal was^ rejected; the vote, however, was not recorded ; the second was lost by a close vote of 11 to 12.^ In the campaign of 1857, the Republicans, either because they deemed it safe and harmless, or were forced to screw their courage up to the sticking-point, squinted at the de mands of the foreign citizens. Their platform contained some masterly generalities to the effect that "the spirit of our institutions as well as the constitution of our Country 1 Debates, vol. II, p. 864. 2 Ibid, p. 868. —63— guarantee liberty of conscience and equality of rights," and they explicitly declai-e their opposition to "all legislation im pairing their security. " * In a practical way, they exhibited their solicitude by nominating Mr. Oran Faville as their can didate for first lieutenant-governor under the new Constitu tion, as a "compliment" due the many estimable foreign citi zens in the party in the State. But despite their anxious care, the thing would not down. In Burlington, the election went ¦"disastrously" for the Republicans. No less' a notable than the brilliant Fitz Henry Warren was defeated in his can didacy for the legislature, because Judge Stockton wrote Clarke, "The Americans generally voted the Democratic ticket. This was caused in part by having a German on the ticket and by a great lukewarmness on the part of our friends. ' ' In his last message to the General Assembly, in January, 1858, Governor Grimes urged the passage of a law for the registration of voters to protect the ballot box and to pre serve the "elective franchise in its purity." He closed his recommendation with these significant observations: "With such a law, and with the strict and honest enforcement of the naturalization laws, we shall cease to see parties arrayed against each other on account of the birthplace of those who compose them, and every bona fide citizen will be secure in his just weight in the affairs of state. Without such a law, judging from recent events, it is feared that popular elections will become a reproach." The effort to secure a registration law was fruitless. The measure introduced was apparently very mild; "the odious section" (No. 13) merely required the naturalized citizen when cliallenged, to exhibit his papers to the Judges of Election. Its effect, however, would have been unequal. The opposition was intense. The passage of the hill was defeated under the leadership of D. A. Mahoney of Dubuque, who resorted to the desperate procedure of having the opponents leave the House of Representatives in a body, thus breaking a quorum.'' In their platform that year, the Republicans were discreeln-that is, silent. They denounced 1 Pairall, lb., p. 44. 2 See account of The Herald of Dubuque, September 21, 1859. —64- the Buchanan administration, the "infamous Lecompton Constitution" and with perfect abandon, insisted upon economy in the State administration and liberial appropria tions for internal improvements.^ The smouldering fires of discontent and suspicion, however, did not subside. Smoke was everywhere and flashes and spurts of flame were seen. Far inland, among the towns and settlements along the Cedar, Iowa, Skunk, Des Moines and Raccoon rivers', Know-Nothingism or antipathy to the foreign born was the animus of much discussion. The open advocacy of exclusion or of severe restrictions upon their political pri-dleges was common although the expediency of avo-wing the purpose was felt to be doubtful. The two parties tacked and veered, each charging the other Avith surreptitious alli ances and fell designs. In Boone, Hamilton and Webster counties, the air was split with exploding charges and counter charges thrown by the highly suspicious patriots. The press bristled with such gracious references as "bog trotters," and "whiskey bruisers," "wooden shoes," and "beer guzzlers." "Freedom to the Nigger," and "Begone you dog!" to the foreigner were twin phrases that the Democratic press rang the changes on with great gusto.'' "It is the same sentiment," continues the address to our "Adopted Citizen" that "gives a negro a vote in Connecticut and tramples your brethren in the dust for twenty-one years. For shame!" ^ iFalrall, lb., pp. 46-47. 2 Ft. Dodge Sentinel, September, 4, 1858. s Ft. Dodge Sentinel, September 4, 1858. The following, purporting to be a letter signed, "A Foreigner," Is reproduced from the Sentinel of October 9th. It illustrates not a little of the method and substance of political dis cussion in the inland counties in 1868. The editor was the late John P. Duncombe : IRISHMEN! GERMANS! POEEIQNBRS OP WHATEVER NAME OR NATION ! WHAT DO TOU THINK OP THE FOLLOWING INSULT TO TOU? The Boonesboro News, the ablest Republican paper published In this Judicial District, In commenting upon the speech of Mr. Elwood, our Democratic Candidate for Attorney General, uses the following language : "Is not the Negro Race as capable of exercising the right of suffrage as the hordes of Foreigners, which yearly land upon our shores ; and Is not their right as good . . , . Where can a more ignorant degraded set of beings be found than nine-tenths of our foreign population, and yet they are placed upon the scale of equality with the native citizen, both politi cally and sorially." We ask any foreigner after being called "Bog Trotters and -Whiskey Bruisers" by the Hamilton Freeman which was fuUy endorsed by the late SOME OF IOWA'S DELEGATES Chicago Convention, May 16-18, 1860 J. F. BROWN, Lawyer JOHN W. THOMPSON, State Senator MICAJAH BAKER, Lawyer W. A. WARREN, Merchant BENJAMIN RECTOR, Lawyer E. G. BOWDOIN, Lawyer —65— This backfiring and bushwhacking took place in the western parts of the northern, or second Congressional District, coin- prehending nearly two-thirds of the State. That year the Republican congressional candidate was Wm. Vandever of Dubuque, who from 1856 to 1859 was pelted with the charge that he had joined a Know-Nothing Lodge in Dubuque, in 1856, becoming an officer thereof.^ Evidently he suffered a change of heart, due either to deliberation or discretion or discipline, for French, Germans, Irish and Swiss swarmed in Dubuque. The suspicions of the Germans of Davenport, how ever, were not "wholly allayed by his discreet and favorable utterances, for one of their most distinguished representatives, Hans Reimer Claussen, a one-time member of the German Parlianlent, demanded a more specific statement from Mr. Vandever. On September 8, 1858, he submitted and asked replies to the following questions: "1. Are you "willing, when a member of Congress, "vigor ously and with all your power to oppose any attempt to change the laws of Naturalization so as to extend the time of probation ? "2. As any legislative measures which prevent a natural ized citizen, after his naturalization for a certain length of time from voting, are equivalent to the extension of the time of probation, are yOu willing to act for or against such measures ? ' ' Mr. Vandever forthwith replied (September 11th) ex plicitly : "In reply I have to say that I am content with the period now prescribed by law for the naturalization of persons of foreign birth, and were I a member of Congress, I should not hesitate to oppose any effort that might be made to ex tend the time. County Convention In a resolution which was offered by the Hon. C. C. Carpenter. . . . Can you do it Irishmen? Can you do It Germans? Can you do it Norwegians? Can you do it Swedes? -Will you lick the dust from the feet of your Tyrants ? . . Arouse ! Awake ! & & (Signed) A Foreigner. An examination of the flies of The Freeman does not disclose any such statement as The Sentinel refers to. Mr. Aldrich informs the writer that It was not uncommon for his partizan critics in those days to suffer from delusions that induced them to assume that he must have said or probably vjroiild say sundry things alleged against him. 1 The Herald of Dubuque, September 18, 1859, and the Mississippi Val ley Register, of Guttenberg, May 26, 1859. 6 —66— "In reply to the other inquiry, I have to say that I deem it peculiarly a subject for state legislation, but I am free to confess that when admitted to citizenship, I know of no reason why a man should be subjected to further probation as a qualification for voting. I certainly would not discrimi nate in this particular, between citizens of native and citizens of foreign birth. "^ 5. The Blaze over the Massachusetts Law. The inattention of the Republicans in 1858 respecting the status of foreign bom citizens was not permitted in 1859. The subject loomed up so suddenly and hugely that neither leaders nor party managers were allowed to dodge or hedge or take to the woods. The Republicans of Massachusetts had by legislative act, proposed to increase the limitations upon electoral privileges of foreigners by adding two years to the probationary period. The prominence of Massachusetts in the Nation's affairs immediately made the measure a matter of keen national interest. Iowa was then or later fondly called ' ' The ilassachusetts of the West, ' ' because of the prominence of New Englanders and Puritanic principles in the State. The Republican press of the middle and western States seems at first to have maintained silence as regards the enact ment. In ilarch a German. "An Iowa Farmer and True Republican," having looked "in vain" for " disapprovement of such a breach of plighted faith," and fearful that such silence meant approval -wrote Greeley's Tribune protesting against the "unjusjt illiberal and offending conduct of the party in New England. ' ' He was not unmindful of the evils in elections and favored a "good registry law" based upon "strict equality" of treatment of foreign born. He urged that the naturalization period be reduced to three years and the right to vote be withheld for two years after. He did not blame the party for what was done in one State, but New Jersey was then apparently about to follow Massachusetts and ' ' we have cause for suspicion ' ' that the Republican party 1 For the letters of Messrs. Claussen and Vandever quoted above the writer is indebted to Dr. August P. Rlchter, now and for many years past editor of Der Demokrat of Davenport Dr. Rlchter's kindness and pains taking in tlie recovery of data in response to inquiries are but scantily acknowledged in this brief note. —67— ' ' everywhere might attempt to treat us in the same manner as long as we hear not a single voice in our defense." He de clares that "Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, New York and perhaps Pennsylvania can be counted Republican through the strength of the German Republican vote." If the Republicans think that they can ignore the just claims of the Germans "I will only remind them of the fact that Caesar's legions were smashed in the woods of Germany." His vigorous letter drew an editorial on "Natural ization and Voting" from Greeley who denied that the law of Massachusetts was arbitrary in purpose: it was "based on a sound principle but wrong in going further than the principle requires." The Tribune concurred in the writer's suggestion of naturalization after three and elect oral privileges after five years. ^ Meantime the Germans of Iowa all along the Mississippi were aroused and became belligerent. They proceeded aggres sively to disicover and to expose the attitude of the Republicans towards the policy of the party in Massachusetts. They ex hibited alike, good tactics and good strategy. Their recon naissance in April took the form of a letter to the Congres sional leaders. Three interrogatories were addressed to them which in substance were (1) Were they in favor of the laws of Naturalization then in force and opposed to all extension of the probation time; (2) Was it the duty of Republicans to "war upon each and every discrimination that may be at tempted between the native bom and adopted citizens, as to right of suffrage"; and (3) Did they condemn the late action of the Republicans in the Massachusetts Legislature ? ^ The prominent signers were Mr. John Bittman and Dr. Carl Hill- guertner of Dubuque, Messrs. Theodore Alshausen, Theodore Guelich and Henry Lischer, of Davenport, and others of Bur lington, Ft. Madison and Keokuk. Senator Grimes first responded (April 30th) declaring con cisely, the measure of Masaschusetts "false and dangerous IN Y Tribune (w.), April 16, 1859. For the citations given In the paragraph the writer is Indebted to Mr. John P. Schee of Indlanola, who courteously granted him permission to examine his file of the weekly Tril)ime. 2 See Salter's Grimes, pp. 119-120. • —68— in principle" and condemning it "without equivocation or reserve." Senator Harlan's reply (May 2nd) was an ex tended discussion of the matter in issue.^ His letter was re printed in broadside for general distribution, the author mind ful, no doubt, that his re-election to the Senate would be a matter of lively public interest in January, 1860. Colonel S. R. Curtis of Keokuk responded (May 13th) at considerable length, but plumply saying "as to two years additional proba tion, I am utterly opposed to it." Mr. Vandever, answering (May 21st) was no less explicit, being opposed to any action adverse to the rights of adopted citizens under the laws then in force, and deploring the action of Massachusetts. He called attention to his letter to Mr. H. R. Claussen, written in 1858. It is not insignificant here that Abraham Lincoln's letter^ (May 17th) to Theodore Canisius of Illinois was reprinted in Der Demokrat of Davenport, in which he expressed himself in clear, strong terms upon this issue, saying, "as I understand the Massachusetts pro-vision, I am against its adop tion in Illinois or in any other place where I have a right to oppose it." ^ Meantime, Mr. John A. Kasson, chairman of the Republican State Central Committee, who always could quickly distin guish a hawk from a handsaw realized the danger to Republi can supremacy in Iowa imminent in the intense, belligerent feelings of the Germans and had acted. He and his confreres of the committee made public a resolution adopted by them April 18th, refusing all countenance to the Massachusetts law and repudiating the principles thereby exemplified.' Among the co-signers with Mr. Kasson, were Mr. Nicholas J. Rusch, a prominent German of Davenport, and Mr. Thomas Seeley of Guthrie county, already referred to, all three being mem bers of Iowa's Republican Delegation at Chicago the following year. This unanimity of opposition among the foremost Repub licans to the movement in Massachusetts, did not allay the sus picions of all Germans nor did it meet -with uniform endorse- 1 Burlington Hawk-eye, May 11, 1859. 2 Der Demokrat, May 25, 1859; all of the letters referred to In tne paragraph above were published therein on the same or previous dates. 3 The Guardian, Independence, May 6, 1859. —69— ment among the Republicans. A bitter not to say virulent discussion was precipitated, that did not end until the close of the campaign in the Fall. In the first place, as the Demo cratic press was alert and prompt to point out, the action of the State Central Committee was adversely regarded by many Republican editors. The Oskaloosa Herald declaring that "the Committee have usurped its authority, and by its late pro- nunciamento, compromises the Republican party of lowa."^ Simultaneously -with the disapproval of the action of Massa chusetts, such influential papers as The Hamilton Freeman, The Muscatine Journal, The Vinton Eagle ''¦ and The- Inde pendence Guardian, were advocating a Registration law which the foreign bom citizens knew was aimed chiefly at them. In addition to these irritating causes. Senator Harlan's letter con tained not a little that aroused criticism and recrimination. Instead of repljdng briefly to Messrs. Hillguertner, Alshausen et al. Senator Harlan discussed at length the general consid erations involved, the evils of unrestricted immigration and the grave dangers possible in the future. More than this, he dealt with the problem of negro slavery as well as with the problem of naturalization and electoral privileges. One can find little or nothing in his discussion of the subject against which objection will lie on abstract or philosophical grounds. He was lucid, forceful and conservative and considerate of pros and cons, both as to the future and the present. There were e-vils and Congress and the States must some time deal with them. Neverthele^, he concluded by rejection of the action of Massachusetts. Still his letter brought upon him sharp rejoinders. The foremost cause, doubtless, was the fact that he was Iowa's senior Senator, whose term of office was about to expire, and he had already achieved fame at Washington. Further he was prominent in the Methodist church, a factor of no mean power in politics. The imme diate causes of the debate his letter produced were the adverse inferences his critics could easily draw from his philosophical generalities. All persons "who possessed requisite virtue and intelligence" should be permitted to vote; but it was "very 1 Quoted In The Express and Herald, Dubuque, May 8, 1859. 2 The Express and Herald, May 1, 1859. —70— difficult to establish a standard": "yet the latter object can be partially attained by indirection." He refers to "the mass of foreigners" and "mendicants, vagrants and criminals" that come with them. The rules of "restriction should be general" but "the length of the probationary residence must ever remain an open question"; for his mind's eye foresaw a time when "our relations with the hordes of Asia" might re sult in an immigration of a "crude population of millions," sufficient, if admitted to citizenship, to inundate our cities, and eastern and western States.^ The criticisms of Mr. J. B. Dorr, editor of The Herald of Dubuque, were perhaps typical of those in the Democratic press. He commented caustically upon the generalities of Mr. Harlan's argument. If the matter should be treated as an "open question" and the best results were to be obtained by "indirection" he necessarily squinted favorably upon the measures of Know-Nothingism. ' ' They [the Republicans] en deavor first by the false cry of 'nigger, nigger' to enlist against the Democracy the free white sons of Europe and when the Democratic party is put down they then turn round and call their allies 'mendicants, vagabonds and criminals' as Senator Harlan does. Nor is this all, but they proscribe them and place above them in political rights the greasy runaway negroes from southern plantations as Republican Massachu setts does." '^ Perhaps the most teUing arraignment of the Republicans anent the Massachusetts law was put forth in a letter of Col. Louis Schade of Burlington and widely published.* He pointed out that the American party in the south and the Republican party in the north had the same warp and woof in their makeup, that the N. Y. Tribune had then but recently said that it would "heartily and zealously support" for presi dent "one like John Bell, Edward Bates, or John M. Botts," well-known "chiefs of Know-Nothingism," that the Repub- 1 The writer Is Indebted to Dr. G. E. Thode of Burlington for a copy of Senator Harlan's letter as it appeared in The Hawk-eye, May 11, 1859. 2 The Herald, Dubuque, May 13, 1859. 3 The Weekly Iowa State Reporter, Iowa City, June 8, 1859, and The Herald, Dubuque, May Slst ; some portions are omitted in the latter. Colo nel Schaile was later for nearly thirty years editor of the Washlneton (D. C.) Sentinel. —71— licahs and Americans or Know-Nothings of New Jersey and New York in 1858 had made agreements to extend the proba tionary period and he cites Horace Greeley's approval. He then pays his respects to the letter of Mr. Harlan "Republican Senator, Bishop of the Methodist church in spe, some years ago a good Know-Nothing ^ and also a Negro Equality Apostle ' ' whose references to the ' ' mass ' ' of foreigners, ' ' men dicants," "Asiatics" etc., arouse his ire. The Yankee and his blue laws, his Puritanism and Pharasaism receive his finest scorn. The "Maine law" he observes "like everything intolerant and despotic originated in New England The Republican party was started in New England, the brains, shoulders and head of the party are in New England. What New England commands, the Republicans of other States obey. ' ' ^ He says pointedly that an ignorant negro after one year's residence in Massachusietts could cast his ballot, but a residence of seven years would be required of a Carl Schurz. These arguments of The Herald and Colonel Schade were givenadded pithand point by thespread of asubstantial rumor in May that plans were under way in some of the northern States to people the unsettled ¦ counties of northwestern Iowa with negroes, emigrants and refugees from the south. Fat was added to the flames when a Republican alderman of Keokuk flippantly asserted that "he would rather see Iowa colonized by negroes than by . . . Dutch and Irish. ' ' ' The alignment and morale of the Democrats were thrown into confusion, however, by a hea-^^ rear fire from their own ranks and from the national citadel itself. Lewis Cass, Secre tary of State, on May 17th, had written Felix Le Clerc of Tennessee, that naturalization in this country would not "ex empt" him from claims of France for unfulfilled military service avoided by his emigration should he return to his 1 Colonel Schade refers to a common charge that in 1856 at Dubuque Senator Harlan was initiated in a Know-Nothing lodge along with Wm. Vandever. See The Herald, Dubuque, on editorial page. May 26, 1859. Reasserted September 18th, m editorial on "German Republicans of Iowa and Wisconsin." The writer has seen neither denial nor proof of the charge. 2 "What Massachusetts does is felt from the Atlantic to the Pacific," Carl Sonurz on True and False Americanism, an address delivered in raneuil Hall, Boston, April 18, 1859. See IV; Y. Tribune (w.), April 30th. 3 The Herald, May 26, 1859, following of The Keokuk Journal. —72— native land.^ The dismay and fury of the anti-administration Democrats was great indeed, for The Herald exclaimed that the ' ' worst Know-Nothing in the country never conceived of a depth of huiniliation for the naturalized citizen equal to that proposed by Gen. Cass as the organ of the Administration," and in most peremptory terms Mr. Dorr demanded the sum mary dismissal of Cass from the cabinet. With this protest, a call for a county Democratic convention was issued and the anti-administration forces asked to convene -with a -view to prevent an endorsement of Buchanan's administration at the approaching State Democratic Convention. The Le Clerc let ter aroused the Germans as well as the French. Secretary Cass was bombarded with inquiries and protests. His letter of June 14th, to Mr. A. V. Hofer of Cincinnati, and his in structions to Minister Wright at Berlin (July 8th), in which he said the American government would protect natural ized citizens against all adverse claims arising subsequent to emigration were eagerly declared by the Democrats to be a "back down" on the part of the administration.^ A close scrutiny of the two letters, however, shows that there was no inconsistency and no modification of Secretary Cass' first announcement — a view which was originally set forth by Wheaton and incorporated in the Bancroft treaty of 1868 with Germany, and to-day governs the diplomacy and foreign rela tions of the United States.^ In the midst of the discu^ion the people were afforded an illustration of the practical significance to Iowa's foreign born citizens, of Secretary Cass' declaration of national policy. There was published a summons received by Mr. Frederick A. Gniffke, then as now editor of Der National Demokrat of Dubuque issued by the royal court of his native city of Dant- zic citing him to appear in person before said tribunal for trial on the charge of avoiding military service, the summons further declaring that in case of non-appearance the investi- 1 Ibid, June 16, 1859. 2 Ibid, and N. Y. Tribune (.w.), July 30th. The American Minister at Berlin was Joseph Wright, brother of Geo. G. Wright, then Chief Justice of Iowa. 8 Moore's Digest of International Law, Vol. Ill, contains the Le Clero letter, p. 588, and the Hofer letter, pp. 672-573. —73^ gation and decision would be "proceeded with in contum- acium."^ 6. The Campaign of 1859. Notwithstanding the gross faults, misconduct and internal discord of the Democratic party with respect to its national administration the Republicans of Iowa prepared -with anxiety for the campaign of 1859. There were grave reasons for alarm. The administration of Governor Lowe, or rather the general developments just preceding and during his term, were not satisfactory. It began -with commotion over a serious scandal in the location of the capitol site in Des Moines. There had been scandalous mismanagement and perversion of the school funds in the office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Multitudinous grief prevailed in the affairs of the Des Moines Navigation Company that aroused fierce ani mosities among the land claimants along the river. The air was split with charges of corruption in the location and con struction of the Insane Hospital at Mt. Pleasant. The re formers of the party under the pressure of "progressive" ideas had augmented appropriations beyond income and a de ficit or debt above the constitutional limit loomed up. So obviously haphazard and expensive was the State's financial administration that the Republicans confessed judgment. The legislature pro-vided for a Commission of three to investi gate and report upon the condition of affairs and recommend beneficial reforms. Of the three appointed by Govemor Lowe, Messrs. John A. Kasson and Thomas Seeley were the party's members, the former being chairman. The dissatis faction arising from the party's financial administration was intensified by the general industrial distress then prevalent as a result of the excessive speculation in private and public local improvements that coUapsed with the panic of 1857. Plus their financial worries the Republicans were anxious over "moral issues." The Germans were aroused by the action of Massachusetts and irritated by the restrictions of the enfeebled ' ' Maine law. ' ' The Democrats in their State platform flatly declared the prohibitory law "unjust and burdensome in its operation and wholly useless in the sup- 1 The Express and Herald, Dubuque, June 16, 1859. —74— pression of intemperance," and demanded its repeal. But the Republican party leaders knew that they dare not capit ulate to such demands for they had already aroused the dis gust of the extreme advocates of prohibition and further retrocession would cause a revolt among the militant Baptists, Christians, Congregationalists, Methodists and Quakers such as nearly defeated John H. Gear in 1877 in his first race for governor. Finally on the subject of slavery the party con fronted many pitfalls. Although the outrages in Nebraska and Kansas had served their purposes well, from 1854 to 1858 there was a lull in the public indignation. There were many signs of reaction. Commercial interests were crying out against further agitation. The southerners' in Iowa were as certain to balk at abolitionism as at the extension of slavery and they wanted to believe and for the most part inclined to make themselves believe that the matter could be dealt with as Stephen A. Douglas contended. Perhaps a sign of this feel ing was the defeat of Mr. J. B. Grinnell in his contest for renomination to the State Senate in 1859. He had drafted the original address of the Republicans to the voters of Iowa in 1856. He was' conspicuous as an abolitionist. The Demo crats conceded that he W'as a man of "decided talents and energy." His defeat was therefore pronounced by them a rebuke to abolitionism.^ It is clear that turn which way they would the Republicans were between Scylla and Charybdis. The Democrats still felt that Iowa was normally within their own domain and its reconquest was a matter of more than local interest. Buchanan's administration at Washing ton and Douglas, no less, were earnestly desirous of regaining the State for their gubernatorial candidate. Plans were care fully laid. The strongest man was picked — Augustus C. Dodge of Burlington. He had represented Iowa in Congress for eighteen years, twelve of which were in the Senate. The movement to make him the Democratic candidate was co incident with the termination of his residence at the court of Madrid as our Minister to Spain. Knowing the intimate rela tions of the Dodges with chiefs of Buchanan's administra- 1 See The Herald, Dubuque, August 5, 1859. tion we may well suspect concert and pre-arrangement at Washington. The earnest, set purpose of the Democrats may be inferred from the ehai^ commonly made and believed by the Republican leaders that a sum approximating $oi?.n00 had been raised chiefly in Washington and in WaU street. wherewith to carry the Democratic ticket in Iowa in 1S59. The Republicans realized the seriousness of the situation and they went about vigorously to deal with it. Cfovemor B. P. Lowe desired a second term and nonnally would have had a second nomination accorded him, but the leaders knew that the straggle was to tax their party strength to the utmost. They therefore set him aside and ehose Samuel J. EAwood, who had Kved in Iowa but four years. Although at the time an unpretentious farmer and miller near Iowa City, and inci dentally a State Senator, he had been a leader in central Ohio a few years before and here immediately demonstrated that he was a man of extraordinary mental and moral potency in puHie affairs, an adroit canvasser and a profound and stoai^tforward reasoner. Govemor Grimes regarded Kh^- wood as the strongest all-round man in point of mental ability moral courage and physical endurance, in meetin§r the rig orous esieeneies of eampaigning in Iowa. The Convention "cordially '" approved tlie action of the State Central Com mittee relative to the ilassaehiisetts law and made a simi lar declaration. As an earnest of their sincerity Senator Nicholas J. Rtiseh of Davenport, who had worked in the legislature for the modification of the Maine law was nomi nated for Eeutenant-giovemor. At that time he spoke En glish -with marked diffic-ulti.- and the critical partizan press had much sport over the fact. A paper in central Iowa ¦with American notions which, in the main, supported the "plow handle'" ticket - but could not stomach his eandidaey, declared that 3Ir. Rnseh "would not have rei-'eived a nomina tion if it had not been for the cxiurse recently taken by 3Iassa- ehtisetts in relation to the naturalization of foreigners. His nomination wa.s made the salve to heal the -wounded feelings 1 Mes^^ Krrfevood and Ros^ w«re ^rniers saA jsracb. -v&s m&de of rise t&ct at the bartiecties and rallies. -76— of his countrymen in this State. His nomination was de manded as a condition of their future fidelity."^ The debates of the ensuing campaign were sharp and strenuous. The Republicans were buffeted with charges of Abolitionism and Know-Nothingism, corruption and paternal'- ism and recreancy to temperance. Kirkwood was charged with being a "renegade from the dark lantern fraternity" still tainted with the vices of Know-Nothingism.- The dis'- cussion of the temperance question became positively vicioua in its virulence; not even the State's representatives in the United States senate were exempt from gross attack. The junior Senator was openly charged with being the owner of a beer garden in Burlington " and the senior Senator was flouted as "the mighty Ajax of the Maine law" with the asser tion made on the stump that he was found imbibing in a saloon in Des Moines at the Republican State Convention.* An instructive illustration of the ticklish conditions that ex asperated and taxed the wits of party leaders may be given. The incident occurred at the opening of the campaign. A Reverend Mr. Jooelyn, a Methodist minister, had been engaged to deliver a series of lectures, sermons or speeches upon tem perance before the congregations of churches or members of temperance organizations in central Iowa roundabout Des Moines. He evidently viewed the prospects witli a gloomy eye, and with reason. The reaction which follows drastic sumptuary legislation such as the Mlaine law had set in strong. The open as well as the surreptitious violation of the statute was increasing. Public sentiment in its favor was waning and its opponents were gaining ground. Vigorous de fensive measures were clearly imperative as Mr. Jocelyn re garded the situation, and he spoke out with vigor, carrying the war into Africa. He attacked the (mndidacy of Nicholas J. Rusch, who being a German, was a representatives of the population that especially protested against the prohibitory law. Mr. Jocelyn was quoted as saying that he "would 1 Weekly Iowa Visitor, Indlanola, July 7, 1859. For this citation the writer is Indebted to Mr. Jas. M. Knox, of Des Molm^.s. 2 The Herald, Dubuque, July 21, 1859. u Iowa Weekly State Reporter, June 8, 1869. i The Herald, Dubuque, September 11, ih.iIj, —77— rather vote for the most ultra-slavery propagandi-st than .0 vote for Rusch." His hard hitting had immediate effect. The Republican leaders both local and State became alarmed for grumbling and threats were heard among the faithful. The queries and rejoinders were: "Are Methodists to cut the ticket? We will make it cut both ways. If you cut Rusch we cut Methodist." The latter meant Senator Harlan. His friends were informed that if Mr. Jocelyn was not stopped the friends of the ticket supporting Mr. Rusch would fight Senator Harlan 's re-election the following January. The Republicans in all their party history in Iowa have probably waged no more vigorous campaign than they con ducted in 1859. They had a phalanx of effective speakers, energetic workers and shrewd managers, many of whom after wards gained interstate and national fame and some inter national distinction.^ Their work was aggressive and well organized. They had a cause that was worthy of their en thusiasm. The aggressions of the Slavocrats both in and out of Congress "the unparalleled profligacy of the [national] administration, the enormous increase of expenditures from forty odd to over eighty million per annum and the consequent hard times''^ under which the people were laboring made Buchanan's regime odious in the north, and discord sundered the strength of the Democrats in the State. Despite all these favoring conditions Kirkwood 's majority was less than 3,000 in an aggregate vote of 110,048. Grimes' majority of 1,823 in 1854 represented a margin of advantage of 4.1 per cent. of the total vote, while Kirkwood 's majority of 2,964 gave him a surplus of only 2.6 per cent, of the aggregate vote cast. 1 Among the leaders earnestly supporting Kirkwood were Senators Harlan and Grimes, Messrs. Fitz Henry Warren, Samuel F. Miller, Timo thy Davis and James Thorlngton, Francis Springer and Hiram Price, James B. Howell, Clark Dunham, John Teesdale and John Mahin, Addison H. Saunders, F. W. Palmer, Charles Aldrich, Jacob Rich and A. B. F. Hil dreth, Col. Alvin Saunders, Wm. H. Seevers and James F. Wilson, Josiah B. Grinnell, Judge "Wm. Smyth, Eliphalet Price and Reuben Noble, Samuel R. Curtis, Wm. Vandever, Charles C. Nourse and John A, Kasson, Gren- vllle M. Dodge, Caleb Baldwin, Ed Wright and C. C. Carpenter, Henry O'Conner and Jacob Butler, Joseph M. Beck, John "W. Noble and John W. Rankin, Henry Strong, George W. McCrary and Hawkins Taylor, Moses MoCoid, R. L. B. Clarke an^ James -w. McDill, George G. -Wright, Henry P. Scholte and James B. Weaver, N. D. Carpenter and N. M. Hub bard, John Edwards, S. A. Rice, W. P. Hepburn and -William Loughridge, A. -W. Hubbard and H. Clay Caldwell, William Penn Clarke and Coker F. Clarkson, John H. Gear and William B. Allison. 2 Senator Harlan's letter last cited. —78— 7. The Conditions of Republican Success for 1860. In the immediate clinch and tug of polities it is not neces sarily the merits of one's ease or the justice of his cause that is decisive in securing the immediate favor of political leaders and party managers but rather the amount of trouble one can make or seem to threaten. Their power for immediate good or ill depends upon the ratios of two conditions : first the degree of balance or equipoUence between the major parties, and second, the degree of co-ordination or unity found within each party's separate alignment. In 1855 the Democratic platform observed that the Republican party of Iowa was made up of " discordant elements. ' ' The assertion as we have seen was true when made and it was largely true in 1859-60. Holding their supremacy by a narrow margin of excess pop ular support Iowa's delegates at Chicago knew full well that Abolitionism, Know-Nothingism and Prohibitionism were sub jects of very high potential, to be let alone so far as practicable if their party was to win a victory in the State in the ensuing campaign'. Moreover they were like surly doss not les^ dangerous because asleep or dro-wsy-eyed. Before 1860 Know-Nothingism was an exploded fallacy and its niethods or tactics but little approved or followed. The American party was also a moribund body made up chiefly of " dry hearts and dead weights" as the late Carl Schurz hit them off. Nevertheless, in January, 1860, native anti- foreign prejudices were still so pronounced in Iowa or the memories of the old controversies and old suspicions so much in mind that the Republican Convention of Scott county in selecting their delegates to the State Convention in Des Moines that was to pick the delegates to Chicago paid careful atten tion to racial animosities and considerations. In the de scription of the county delegation five were reported as Ger mans, including Lieutenant-Governor Rusch; five were listed as Americans of which Mr. John W. Thompson was one ; and three were given as Irish. ^ In the Convention at Des Moines we shall find that marked consideration was given -to those important factional potentialities. It was well, too. In Feb- 1 Davenport Gazette, quoted in the Daily Journal of Muscatine, Janu ary 6, 1860. —79— ruary the remnants of the party sent Mr. William L. Toole, of Mt. Pleasant, an influential pioneer citizen of Iowa as a delegate to Washington where the Americans formulated the manifesto that constituted the ground work whereon was built the Constitutional Union party which nominated Bell and Everett in May following,^ — a ticket that perplexed the party leaders in Iowa in the ensuing campaign. Later in March, it was in Scott county that originated the movement that had some part, and there is reason to suspect a major part, in thwarting the well laid plans of Horace Greeley of The Tribune and the Blairs of Maryland and Missouri. The political conditions in Iowa on the eve of the great con test of 1860 have been described with what may seem undue detail with a view to demonstrating four facts : First, The political conditions in Iowa in 1860 were like those obtaining in what were called the "battle ground States, ' ' -viz. : New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Illinois. Second, Neither Horace Greeley's assertion (February 8, 1860) that like Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota, Iowa was "Republican anyhow," nor Senator Harlan's declaration at Washington (February 12th) that Iowa was "strong enough to carry any good man, ' ' was warranted ; but on the contrary the statement of The New York Herald (March 7th) that "The States which the Republicans consider doubtful in the ensuing campaign are Pennsylvania, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana and New Jersey. The delegates, then, from these States hold a balance of power . . . " — was more nearly the correct forecast. Third, In view of the narrow majority by which the Re publicans of Iowa held control of the State and the pro nounced inability of the party by reason of the bitter ani mosities of abolitionists and negro-phobists, the sharp antag onisms of foreigners and natives, the antipathies of Catholics and Protestants, and the contentiousness of the advocates and opponents of radical temperance legislation, the nomination of a candidate for President whose character or career would irritate or inflame those prejudices^ — prejudices in some cases 1 Sea N. Y. Herald, February 21, 1860. -so- so deep set that as Kirkwood put it in February, 1860, "fire would not bum" them out — such a nomination would have been unwise in the extreme. Fourth, If the foregoing conclusions are well-founded then Grimes' ad-vice to Wm. Penn Clarke in 1856, -viz. : "We can not elect Mr. Seward or any other old politician against whom there are old chronic prejudices which you know are hard to be conquered. To build up and consolidate a new party we must have men who have not been before the people as poli ticians" — was equally sound on May 18, 1860. Jl- f ^^m tn nr ''[n ?«. '^¦tv:*rr , , * ''(I '''^''fe'Pifl&r'v '¦ .,'vh;!' .«l»4i f 'i /'!'i 'i Mf;, tf/';;:;-! I-: