„¦ 'MO'/i-l IG23
--LIBRARY ;

The Premises and Significance
of Abraham Lincoln's Letter
to Theodore Canisius.

BV

Fi I. HERRIOTT
Professor of .Economics and Political Scieace
DRAKE UNIVERSITY
Des Moines

Reprinted from DeytscH-Amerikanische Geschichtsbliitter
Jahrbuch der Deutsqh-Amerikanischen Historischen
Gesellschaft von Illinois — ^Jahrgang 1915
, (Vol. XV.)

THE PREMISES AND SIGNIFICANCE OF ABRAHAM
EINCOLN'S LETTER TO THEODORE CANISIUS
By F. I. Herriott.
Professor of Bconomics and Political Science,
Drake University, Des Moines.
I was anxious to speak with you on politics a little more fully
than I can well do in a letter. My main object in such conversation
would be to hedge against divisions in the Republican ranks generally,
and particularly for the contest of 1860. The point of danger is the
temptation in different localities to "platform" for something which
will be popular just there, but which, nevertheless, will be a firebrand
elsewhere, especially in a national convention. As instances, the move
ment against foreigners in Massachusetts ; * * * in Ohio, to re-
'peal the Fugitive Slave law. * * * in these things there is ex
plosive matter enough to blow up a half a dozen national conventions,
if it gets into them. — A. Lincoln to Schuyler Colfax, July 6, 18S9.
In its issue of May 25, 1859, The Daily Express and
Herald of Dtibuque, Iowa, the most influential Democratic
paper in tihe state at that time, contained the following racy
editorial article, the product probably of the editor's own pen,
Mr. J. B. Dorr's : The Leaders Panic Stricken
A class "in definitions" was reciting its lessons in
school once upon a time, where we were present, when
the word "panic" fell to the lot of a boy who had a good
deal of native talent, but was rather negligent of his
studies. This little fellow abhorred the idea of an ap
pearance of failing and would always say something
whether right or wrong. The teacher repeated, "John
define 'panic'." John hesitated a moment as if collecting
his thoughts, and then spoke up, — "Panic, Sir, Yes, Sir,
panic is a dog running most scared to death, with a tin
pan at his tail."
This boy's definition of panic was forcibly brought to
mind yesterday in looking over a number of our Repub
lican exchanges in which we observed the panic struck
running and dodging of the Republican leaders of the
Northwestern states. Their alarm is awful, their fright
is complete, and they are "running most scared to death,"

as if they were precisely in the predicament of the boy's
dog. The "tin pan" effectively attached to the "narrative"
''of their party is the proscriptive action of Republican
Massachusetts and her placing naturalized white men be
neath the Negro in political rights. In Massachusetts the
party of shams is strong enough to be independent of
the German votes, but in the Northwestern states this is
not the case. Hence the leaders here are panic stricken,
lest the action of their party in that state excite disaf
fection in the minds of intelligent and honest Germans of
this region.
In order, therefore, to prevent this result, these
frightened leaders are just now performing some tall
feats, by way of endeavoring to run away from the
thing of terror which eastern Republicanism has firmly
fastened on their party. They cannot do it, however.
The more they run the more frightened they appear to
becorrie, and do all they can, they still feel the dreaded
thing clinging to their cowering carcasses — they fear it
will be the death of them, and probably it will.
The first symptoms of terror among them in this por
tion of the Union, were shown by the "Republican State
Central Committee" of this State, in their issue of a set
of resolutions condemning the action of their Massachu
setts brethren in the name of the party in Iowa. — This
document was followed by letters from the Congressional
delegation. About the same time with these the panic
began to operate among the leaders in Illinois and Wis
consin, and it has increased until the present time. It
now seems to be at its highest pitch, and the whole brood
of Republican leaders from Lincoln down to Wentworth
are uttering their disclaimers, issuing letters deprecatory
and denunciative, and presenting to the mind's eye the
picture of a hundred howling curs in the same predica
ment as the boy's panic stricken dog.
Well, it is none of our funeral. * * *
] The panic thus particularly referred to by Mr. Dorr's pa-
I per was the nation-wide disturbance produced among German
I Republicans and in consequence among the leaders and man-
X.. ' I agers of the Republican party by the proposal and final adop-
; tion on May 9th in a state referendum by the people of Massa-
*' chusetts of what was currently called the "Two Year" Amend-

ment to their constitution, whereby the right of voting and hold
ing office in the Old Bay State was denied' to^ the foreign-born
/'^until they could certify a residence within the United States
of seven years with naturalization as a prerequisite therein.
Mr. Dorr's caustic comments, while strong and sweeping, were
in fact not without warrant.
I The sudden display of energy by the Republican leaders of
j Iowa and Illinois during April and May in direct and obvious
i attempts to placate the German voters indicated that the party
chiefs experienced a degree of anxiety and perplexity so ur
gent as to approximate panic. The developments in Iowa and
the aggressive measures of the Republican leaders west of the
Mississippi attracted general attention, and as the narrative
will display, produced the urgency and specific developments in
Illinois. Within two weeks of the publication of the resolu
tions and letters of the leaders in Iowa, sundry resolutions,
and explicit and emphatic statements were given forth in Illi
nois by seven of the foremost leaders of the Republican party,
each declaring hostility to the principle and policy of the "Two
Year" Amendment of Massachusetts.
• Mr. Dorr's editorial exhibits another fact of no^ small
significance. His specific reference to Abraham Lincoln and
\ the mode of the reference signalize in a definite and sub-
; stantial fashion the high altitude of his interstate reputation
j and the marked consideration given his views and actions out-
iside of Illinois a year before he was nominated by the National
jRepublican convention at Chicago, May 18, 1860. Mr. Dorr
'was an editor with no little influence among Democratic par
tisans. It was to him Senator Stephen A. Douglas addressed
a noteworthy letter on June 22, 1859, stating the terms on
which he would consent to be a candidate for the Democratic
nomination for the Presidency before the Charleston conven
tion; and he had a keen eye for the major facts and per
sonalities in the impending political campaign.
Tlie_occa^iorL.af_Mri-Darrls--pef-ereuce. to Abraham Lijicoln
wasJhej2ublicatiflii_a_f£asL_day^^ Illinois^
and Iowa, of a letter to a iellow-townsman of Springfield, Dr.
— 3 —

Theodore Canisius, editor of a then recently established Ger
man paper, J/Zinoij Staats-Anzeiger. Mr. Lincoln's letter was
written in response to some particular inquiries addressed to
him by a committee of Germans of that city with a view to dis
covering his attitude towards the principle of the "Two Year"
Amendment. The letter had a double, if not a triple, signifi
cance. The writer's distinction by reason of the national fame
he had achieved in his debates with Senator Douglas in 1858
made any expression of his on matters in controversy in
politics a fact of general interest. It was significant because
Mr. Lincoln was not accustomed to indulging in epistolary ef
fusions, being more than ordinarily cautious in this respect.
The exigency that would elicit such a letter, Mr. Dorr could
easily discern, was nothing else than the threatening belliger
ency of the Germans. The letter was extensively reprinted
in the Republican press oi the country, both German-and
American papers publishing it entire.
TheJettfiLloDr. JCaniaiiiaJj£canie:,-in--&€ present ^Titer's
judgmentj^a, primary fact,jaad4ierhaps the_major fact, in the
production of that favorable_.state_pXniind among the liberty-
loving, progressive-Germans tliat caused them to be reconciled
to, and instantly t.o applaud the nomination of j\Ir. Lincoln for
the Presidency by the Republican party a year later. The sub
stantial truth of this assertion is clearly indicated in the fact
that immediately upon the reception of the news that Mr.
Lincoln had been nominated at Chicago the Republican and
.Independent press throughout the country, both German and
American, very generally reprinted the letter entire; with the
positive assertion, or with the implication, that the Germans
and the friends of the foreign-bom had therein indubitable
proof of the liberalit}' of the Republican candidate for the
Presidency on which they could rely with confidence respect
ing his course, should he be elected, in matters of legislation and
public policy affecting the status of the foreign-bom.
In what follows the premises of ^Nlr. Lincoln's letter to Dr.
Canisius will be exhibited. Two major objectives are chiefly
contemplated : first the demonstration of the causal relation of
prior developments in Iowa to the formulation and publication

r of Mr. Lincoln's letter; and, second, the exhibition of ante
cedent and collateral developments in Illinois that produced
the concentration which constrained Mr. Lincoln to reply to
Dr. Canisius.
The important facts as to the origin and nature of the dis
turbance produced among Republicans in the northwest states
by the adoption of the "Two Year" Amendment in Massachu
setts, and the range and significance of the agitation resulting —
especially as regards Iowa — have been given by the present
writer in considerable detail in previous pages.^ The facts
therein presented are assumed in the ensuing exposition. Some
of the more important facts as they affect the matter in hand
will be briefly restated in order to indicate the premises of the
probability of the general and particular connection between
the developments in Iowa with the immediate developments in
Illinois. I.
On the morning of April 20, 1859, the political horizon of
Iowa displayed no serious sign of storm or portent of gather
ing cloud. Nevertheless, the currents had for weeks been run
ning rapidly and converging, and concentration had taken
place some days before. The Republican State Central Com
mittee, composed of seven party leaders from as many different
sections of the state, on April 18, at Des Moines, agreed upon
a series of resolutions condemning in the most downright and
' See the writer's "The Germans of Davenport and the Chicago
Convention of 1860," Dcutsch-Amerikanische Gescliichtsbldtter for
July. 1910, vol. X, pp. 156-163. Also Ibid, "The Germans of Iowa and
the 'Two Year' Amendment of Massachusetts," ibid, Jahrgang 1913,
vol. xiii, pp. 202-308. Also, ibid, "The Germans in the Gubernatorial
Campaign of Iowa in 1859," ibid, Jahrgang 1914, vol. xiv, pp. 451-623.
In a paper read at the annual meeting of the Illinois State His
torical Society, in Evanston, May 17, 1911, entitled "Massachusetts,
the Germans and the Chicago Cbnvention of 1860," the writer dealt at
length with the general eflfect throughout the country of the adoption
of the "Two Year" Amendment in Massachusetts and its direct bear
ing upon the decision of the Chicago convention. The paper was
reserved from the Proceedings by the writer and is not yet published.

¦ outright language the Legislature of Massachusetts for the pas
sage of a proposal to amend the constitution of that Common
wealth, which would exact a two years residence after naturali
zation of all foreign born who should thereafter desire to ex
ercise the franchise and hold office. Although the resolutions
were formally agreed upon at Des Moines on the 18th, there
are a number of reasons for suspecting that the Chairman and
some of the members had met at Davenport in the two weeks
preceding and conferred upon the advisability of such an ex
pression, being prompted so to do by the increasing discontent
among the Germans of eastern Iowa and their evident bel
ligerent disposition in respect of the act proposed in Massa
chusetts. The resolutions of the State Central Committee were pub
lished at length on April 20th, in The Weekly lowd. Citizen at
Des Moines, John Teesdale, editor and State Printer. Ac
companying the resolutions was an extended Address, "To
the Republicans of Massachusetts and of the Union," signed
by the Chairman, Mr. John A. Kasson, a resident of Des
Moines. Pie probably was the author of the resolutions as
well as of the Address. The Address was a vigorous indict
ment of the principle of the "Two Year" Amendment and a
stirring appeal to the patriotism and prudence of the Repub
licans of Massachusetts to defeat the pending proposal.
The resolutions promulgated by the State Central Com-
\ mittee in Iowa were given extensive circulation outside the
state. They were printed at length on the editorial pages of
iThe Press and Tribune of Chicago on April 29th and on the
isame date they appeared on the editorial page of The Tribune
\ of New York ; and on May Sth they were given similar distinc-
|tion on the first page of The National Bra, at Washington,
I D. C. All of the papers named had an extensive circulation
\ in the states of the Northwest, particularly Greeley's Weekly
\ Tribune.^ ' The circulation of the Weekly Tribune in Iowa in the forepart of
1859 -was 7,523, more than double the circulation of The Hawkeye of
Burlington, the most influential and widely read Republican paper in
eastern Iowa. — 6 —

The Germans of Iowa, however, did not seem to be en
tirely satisfied. Their confidence in the integrity and reliability
of the Republican party had been so rudely shocked by the
'; act of the Legislature of Massachusetts controlled by Repub-
i licans and nominal liberals and "progressives," as philan-
I thropists and reformers, then, as now-a-days, fondly called
I themselves, that they were highly suspicious and insisted that
I all of those charged with the leadership of the party should
\ make the most explicit and unequivocal avowals of their atti-
|; tude toward the "Two Year" Amendment.
Sometime in the latter part of March some of the leaders
among the Germans began to suspect that the Republicans were
very wary of expression anent the act proposed in Massa
chusetts. Probably during March Nicholas J. Rusch, a state
senator from Scott county, addressed a long communication
to Greeley's Tribune, which appeared April 11th, in which he
pointed out this fact in language that left no doubt as to the
alarm and discontent among the Germans in Iowa. Again, al
though the resolutions of the Republican state central com
mittee and Mr. Kasson's address were very outspoken, many
of the leading Republican papers gave the resolutions no com
mendation in their editorial columns and a number of the in
fluential party editors sharply criticized Mr. Kasson and his
colleagues of the committee for their action, declaring it ultra
vires and without justification; among others condemning the
Committee were. The Dubuque Daily Times, The Oskaloosa
Herald, The Montezuma Republican, The Spirit of the West
of Sigourney, and The Weekly Nonpareil of Council Bluffs.
It was not strange that the suspicious Germ.ans concluded that
f/the Republicans were not overzealous in their opposition to
the proposed act of the Republicans of Massachusetts.
Another fact loomed large in the minds of Germans and
enhanced their suspicion and cynical contempt for formal
j declarations. The first National Republican convention at
(_^ I Philadelphia had concluded their platform with an appeal to
i "men of all parties," the final words of which were an explicit
J declaration and pledge of opposition to all legislation or public
— 7 —

1 policy adversely affecting the naturalized citizens. The plank
.'(reading: — "believing that the spirit of our institutions as well
i as the Constitution of our country guarantees liberty of con-
I science and equality of rights among citizens, we oppose all
' legislation impairing their security." As the Republicans of
Massachusetts had proposed and submitted to their consti
tuents the "Two Year" Amendment with that unqualified
pledge staring them full in the face, and with indignant Ger
mans pressing its obligation upon their consideration, the dis
turbance and doubts among Germans were normal resultants.
Hence the decision to resort to decisive and conclusive meas
ures to discover the position of the Republican leaders, to force
them to come out into the open and to stand by their guns.
Both in method and in results their maneuvre was in truth,
what our military experts would call a reconnoissance in force.
Sometime in April the leaders among the German Repub
licans of Dubuque, Davenport, Muscatine, Burlington and Keo
kuk began to correspond and to confer concerning the situa
tion and to concert plans for discovering the true feelings of
the standard bearers of the Republican party severally and in
such a way as would give no opportunity to fearful or shifty
politicians for hedging or dodging or denial.
Whether the manoeuvre agreed upon was first urged at
Dubuque, or at Davenport, or at Burlington, or elsewhere;
who first suggested or urged concert of action; who took the
lead in promoting it; what the various plans suggested were
and what the precise plan ultimately agreed upon — all these
important items probably are now matters for conjecture. The
files of the .Stoats Zeitung, and of the Volkstribun, both of
Dubuque, of the Zeitung of Muscatine and the Preie Presse
of Burlington have been lost; the columns of Der Demokrat of
Davenport give us no clue; and the American papers disclose
nothing of the prior developments. In view of the intense feel
ing among the Germans and the noteworthy results of their
concert of action it is passing strange that the editors of some
of the German papers did not let the public know something
of the preliminaries and the persons foremost in the prosecu
tion of the manoeuvre. Sundry facts indicated in the initial
— 8 —

responses obtained by the Germans, however, enable us to learn
the names of some of the leaders in the movement and some
what of their plan of operations.
Consultations and correspondence among the German lead
ers concluded in a decision to formulate a letter containing a
series of specific questions to be presented personally to each
of the members of the Congressional Delegation of Iowa,
namely to Senator James Plarlan and Senator James W.
Grimes, and to Colonel Samuel R. Curtis of the First or South
ern District, and to Mr. William Vandever of the Second or
Northern District. The interrogatories numbered three and
were as follows :
1. Are you in favor of the Naturalization laws as
they now stand, and particularly against all and every
extension of the probation time?
2. Do you regard it a duty of the Republican party
as the party of equal rights, to oppose and war upon each
and every discrimination that may be attempted to be
made between the native born and adopted citizens, as
to the right of suffrage?
3. Do you condemn the late action of the Repub
licans in the Massachusetts legislature, attempting to ex
clude the adopted citizens for two years from the ballot
box, as unwise, unjust, and uncalled for?
It is not quite clear whether the letter containing the fore
going interrogatories was a circular letter with the same sub
scribers to each and all presented to the Congressional Dele
gation or not. From some of the responses it would appear
that it was .substantially a circular letter; but the names of
the initial subscribers seem to have varied more or less with
the locality of the Congressman addressed. The number who
joined in presenting the questions seem to have been a con
siderable group — in one instance, at least, exceeding fifty.'
° Senator Grimes addressed his reply to Messrs. Hillgaertner, Bitt-
mann, Freund, Olshausen, Guelich and others. See Der Demokrat,
S Mai. Senator Harlan addressed his reply to Mr. J. B. Webber and
others. The Hawkeye, May 11. Col. Curtis' letter of May 13 -was
directed to Messrs. Kuestenmacher, Henry Richter, Silas Schmidt and
"49 others," The Gate City, May 19; and Mr. Vandever's response
was addressed to Messrs. Richter, Olshausen, Kuestenmacher "and
others.'' The Buchanan County Guardian, June 2.
— 9 —

Among the signers were several prominent German lead
ers; men with reputations exceeding the bounds of their city
or state :— Messrs. Theodore Guelich and Theodore Olshausen
of Davenport, the first named being the original editor, and
the second the then managing editor of Der T'dgliche Demo
krat; and Messrs. Henry Richter, John Bittmann and George
Hillgaertner of Dubuque. Mr. Richter was the editor of the
Iowa Staats-Zeitung and Dr. Hillgaertner was an associate
editor with him.
Their circular letter, at least those addressed to Senators
Grimes and Harlan appear to have been dated April 30.
There is color for the notion that a committee of Germans at
Burlington presented the letter addressed to Senator Grimes in
person. Pie either had been forewarned, or he responded with
remarkable haste, or assurance ; for he replied instantly, on the
same day. His reply was printed in The Hawkeye on May 3
and appeared at length in Der Demokrat at Davenport on May
5. Senator Plarlan's response, an extended document of ap
proximately 3500 words, was dated at Mt. Pleasant May 2.
It did not appear in The Hawkeye until May 11 and in Der
Demokrat at Davenport until May 13. These dates we shall
have occasion later to note are significant.
II.
In the light of the immediate and widespread consequences
of the Circular letter addressed to the Congressional Delega
tion of Iowa by the Germans of eastern Iowa, the authorship
of the letter becomes a matter of more than vagrant curiosity.
The loss, or disappearance of most of the papers whence au
thentic information might be obtained; and the utter silence
of those editors whose papers are preserved make conclusions
wholly a matter of generous inference and surmise.
Four names that appear among those to whom the Repub
lican Congressmen of Iowa sent their replies, and one not
named, may not unreasonably be accredited with conceiving
and executing the plan composing the letter containing the
categorical inquiries— Messrs. Bittmann, Plillgaertner, Guelich
— 10 —

aud Olsliausen, already mentioned and Mr, Hans Reimer
Clausen ot Pavenport. Ali. s.ue Mr. r^ittmann. were refugees
from the arbitrar\- and oppressive >;overnn\em of their Fatlier-
land; aU were liberals of the advanced or radical sort: all were
pronour.ced opponents of Slavery and outspoken in tlieir op
position to its extension and continuance : and all had stood
forth in the forefront of many a fight for the furtherance of
their ideas.
Mr. Clausen was not specifically named in any of the letters
as one of tiiose addressed ; but it is inconceivable that a man
as active and as^'gres-'^ive as he was in puMiioting the interests
of liberal Oennan-.\nieric;ins was not active in the conferences
that concluded in the German Circular letter. Ue was among
the leaders of the bar of Davenport and was an ag'gTessive
at.d domii-ant tyi^e of leader in practical politics. The letter
of April oO. lSi>9. was in no small measure a repetition and
enlr.rgctnent of a letter addressed by him publicly to Mr.
\ andever on September S. 1S58. as a candidate for Congress.*
His questions were the same, and the method of his manetuTe
to elicit an une<.\nivocal expression from Mr, Vandever was
precisely followed in 185*^; and Mr. \'andever was again one
of those addressed in April. 185^"*- If he did not first su£;'5;-est
or hsifiate the plan thus to concert action, his letter of 185S
Uiay h;'.ve served as the prompting suggestion.
Mr. John l^itt^^ann. fomuier and editor of tlie 6"/ui!tj-
.'."<¦.¦.'«»(; of Dubuque, and Mr. Theodore Guelich. the founder
of P.v Dei'U'krc.t of Oiuenport. were each capable of conceiv
ing the pl.vu of the circular letter and of vigv^rously pressing
matters to an issue, for both were liberals of the irreducible.
not to say. irrepressible sort. able. ardetU in temperament, and
' Mr. Cljxusen's ouesrions prose!"te\l to Xfr. Wnndever. Sopreniber S.
li?c>S, as shued above, were tl'.e fol!o\vi!ig-:
I, .-Vre WH willing, when a member of Congress, vigprously .ind
with all your power to oppose any attempt to char.ge the laws of
natwraliration so as to extend t'ae time of probation;
,2. As a;Y legis'ative measure which prevent a naturaU.-ed citi-en,
after his naturalisation for a certain length of time from \-v>ting. are
eqni\"alent to the extension of the time of probation, are yon williiigr to
act for or ag;\inst such measures? — 11 —

energetic and courageous in all affairs arousing them to action.
In the organization of the. Republican party in Iowa in 1856
Mr. Bittmann and Mr. GueUch were two of three German edi
tors who balked because the state convention at Iowa City re
fused to declare itself plumply against all men and meas
ures affected with Know-Nothingism,° and they were not a
whit less energetic and outspoken in 1859.
In respect of ability and character, discernment and cour
age, the same observations are to be made of Mr. Theodore
Olshausen, then editor of Der Demokrat. He had been a
man of distinction in Schleswig-Holstein as a lawyer and
statesman. From 1851 to 1856 he had been a resident of St.
Louis where he engaged in literary work. In 1856 he took
(:harge of Der Demokrat and his distinction added greatly to
the influence of that journal in the Mississippi valley. Mr.
Olshausen's career later at St. Louis, as the editor -of the
Anzeiger des Westens during the critical days of 1861 when
the hearts of the burghers of that fair city were torn with
Disunion disclosed that he had the discerning eye, the steady
courage and persistent purpose, that would have compassed
the manoeuvre in Iowa in 1859, had he discerned the urgency
for so doing.
The name of Dr. George Hillgaertner of Dubuque pro
duces strong presumptions in favor of the conclusion that he
took the lead in formulating the circular letter of April 30.
He fled from Bavaria under sentence of death for his part in
the Revolution. He came to the United States about 1852. He
accompanied Professor Gottfried Kinkel, as his Private Secre
tary, in his celebrated tour of our eastern and southern states
in his attempt to raise a loan of a million dollars to promote
a liberal government in Germany. In tlie forepart of 1854
he settled in Chicago and immediately became one of the edi
tors of Der Illinois Staats Zeitung and one of the influential
leaders of the Germans in that city. He was an out-and-out
° See Dubuque Daily Republican, March 3, 1856, in which the state
ment si,gned by Messrs. Bittmann and Guelich and L. Mader of the
Preie Presse of Burlington, declaring that they will hold aloof from
the new party until it is purged of the "impure elements" by which it
was then "infested." — 12 —

opponent of Slavery, of Know-Nothingism and of "Maine-Law-
ism" as the drastic "ternperance" legislation of those days was
designated. In the notable Mass-meeting of the Germans in
South Market Hall on the night of March 16, Dr. Hillgaert
ner was made chairman of the coinmittee on resolutions and
brought in and presented the ringing resolutions denouncing
Senator Douglas for his course in respect of the part he had
taken in the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Later in that
year he spoke out so vigorously against the prevalent prop-
agandism against the foreign-born then raging and against
pending proposals or proceedings to restrict or prohibit the
manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors as beverages that a
storm broke about his head and mob-violence and judicial pro
ceedings seemed to threaten his liberty, if not his life. His
was a character that had no patience for arbitrary government
in any form or place and he had an ardent temperament which
made him reckless of policy or prudence. It was probably the
reaction of his course that caused him in 1855 to sever his con
nection with the Staats Zeitung of Chicago and remove to
Dubuque where he became associated with Mr. John Bittmann,
as an associate editor in the conduct of the Staats Zeitung of
that city. In his new home city proslavery sentiment was so
preponderant that Democrats fondly called Dubuque "The
Gibraltar of the Democracy of Iowa." In Iowa, as in Illinois,
Dr. Hillgaertner immediately stepped to the fore in the stormy
discussions of that day. When the opponents of Slavery first
assembled in a mass-meeting in Dubuque to effect the first
local organization of the Republican party in that county. Dr.
Hillgaertner was made one of the two secretaries and was one
of the two asked to address the meeting. He was sent as a
delegate to the first Republican state convention at Iowa City
on February 22. Dr. Hillgaertner was a licentiate in law of
the Unriversity of Munich. His ability as a forceful writer was
signified in October, 1859, by a call to join the editorial staff
of Der Westliche Post of St. Louis and that of Der Anzeiger
des Westens on which he remained until his death in October,
1865, aged 41.
A conclusion as to the first proposer of the Circular letter
— 13 —

of April 30 and as to its author must be clouded by uncer
tainty. The similarity of the questions presented to the Con
gressional Delegation of Iowa in 1859 to those submitted to
Mr. Vandever in 1858 by Hans Reimer Clausen strongly sug
gests him as the man foremost in the matter.
Senator Grimes' reply gives us a definite clue. It was ap
parently delivered to him at Burlington in person. But the
first person named among the addressees is Dr. Hillgaertner.
This suggests that Senator Grimes formally responded to the
committee of Germans who signed the letter and Dr. Hill-
gaertner's name, it would seem, headed the array of signatures.
As Dr. Hillgaertner was a resident of Dubuque, and probably
was not a familiar acquaintance of Senator Grimes, the con
clusion would seem fairly to be that Senator Grimes first
named the chairman or prim.e mover in the project. It is cus
tomary — although not invariable — for the chairman of a com
mittee to formulate the sentiments of the body or persons in
terested. There is thus a strong presumption in favor of such
a conclusion. The character and career of Dr. Hillgaertner
confirms and strengthens this conclusion."
" Por additional information as to Hans Reimer Clausen see the
writer's "Iowa and the First Nomination of Abraham Lincoln," in
The Annals of loiva, vol. viii, pp. 205-206 ; and also his "The Germans
of Davenport and the Chicago Convention of 1860," in Deutsch-
Amerikanische Geschichtsbl'dtter, vol. x, pp. 156-163.
See Gue's "Life and Death of Theodore Guelich,'' Annals of Iowa,
vol. i, pp. 46-52.
The writer is indebted to Dr. August P. Richter, formerly editor
of Der Demokrat of Davenport for data as to the careers of John
Bittmann and Theodor Olshausen.
For the career of Dr. George Hillgaertner see Illinois Staats-
Zeitung, Jubilee edition, July 4, 1898: Georg Hillgaertner — Bine bio-
graphische .Skisse. [By Dr. Emil Pretorius?] St. Louis, 1866:
Deutsche Geschichtsforschung fiir Missouri, No. 5, April 1914, "Georg
Hillgaertner, ein Held der Feder und der That in Deutschland und
Amerika," pp. 138-144: and the writer's "The Germans of Chicago and
Stephen A. Douglas in 1854," in Deutsch-Amerikanische Geschichts
bliitter, vol. xii, pp. 156-163.
The writer is indebted to Dr. George Minges of Dubuque, Iowa,
and to Mr. Wm. A. Kelso of The Daily Post-Dispatch of St. Louis for
most of the data and references to sources of information as to the
career of Dr. Hillgaertner. — 14 —

Let us now follow developments across the river and dis
cover if there are any causal relations between events in Iowa
[ and those preceding Mr. Lincoln's reply to Dr. Canisius.
III.
Xil£-_AlS5li£5S__EI£5LJ2i-iiliB2is_J?££HS£_ aroused to^jbf-
serious political significance of the proposed. "Xwo ^Yeax"
Amendrnentto the constitution _of Massachtisetts jis, soon as
the press of Iowa. The_first_noteworthy expression was a
striking editorial in The Press and Tribune oi Chicago, March
217 T^ts length, its earnestness and vigor demonstrate that the
editor saw in the growing agitation of the Germans conse-
i/quent upon the proposal in Massachusetts, serious and im
minent danger threatening the success of the Republican party
in both state and nation. In these distant days it is not easy
to realize the nature, sweep and significance of the alarm that
suddenly took possession of the foremost Republican editors-
and party leaders of the anti-slavery and Opposition forces-
in the forepart of 1859 anent the act submitted to the electors
of Massachusetts ; and in order that this fact may in some part
be realized the entire editorial is here reproduced :
VOTE IT DOWN.
The Legislature of Massachusetts has lately proposed
an amendment to the constitution of that state restrict
ing the right of voting, among adopted citizens, to such
as have been two years naturalized. The amendment is
to be submitted to the people at the next general election.
We hope that it ma}' be voted dov/n ; and that the Repub
lican party of the Commonwealth will be preeminent in
its opposition to the proposed change. It is due to
the integrity of our organization, composed as it is of
the masses of the educated foreigners of all nationalities
that a measure in itself so unjust and unexpected — one
against which they supposed that the Republican National
Convention at Philadelphia in 1856 had given them a Suffi
cient guaranty — should meet with its quietus by Repub
lican hands. Good faith and fair dealing with those who
separated themselves from the bogus Democracy to as
sist the party of Freedom in the accomplishment of thr
— 15 —

y

results which it proposes — who have for the sake of prin
ciple been willing to fraternize with Know Nothings,
their most deadly enemies — and v.'ho have, in their action
on national questions at issue between parties, displayed
a degree of patriotism and fidelity which many an Amer
ican might imitate with advantage, — good faith to these
demands that there should be no hesitation, no dodging,
no compromises in this thing. It must be killed, or Re
publicanism in all the Northwestern States and not a
few of the eastern States is needlessly and imminently
imperilled !
While we speak thus decidedly, let not our Massa
chusetts friends understand that the Republicans of Illi
nois and the adjoining states, where the value of the
aid of the adopted citizens in the progress of the Repub
lican principles is recognized and appreciated, ask for a
continuance of the naturalization laws as they are. Our
Germans, Scandinavians, English, Protestant Irish and
French, to a man, will not only assent to, but gladly de
clare them.selves in favor of an important change. They
see as clearly as Americans can the frauds which, under
the existing law, may be and are perpetrated, and they
will, we are assured, co-operate with whomsoever will take
the lead in the legislation that may be necessary for great
er security of their inestimable rights. They will cor
dially agree that no man shall vote within two years of
the date of his past papers, if those papers can be ob
tained by a three years residence; or, what is better still,
they will consent that five years may intervene between
the date of the naturalization papers, and the first exer
cise of the elective franchise, provided that naturaliza
tion may take place within the first year's residence in
the country. But they demand, and justly enough, that
the law shall be a law of Congress uniform in action and
universal in its application ; and it is a wonder that the
members of the Massachusetts Legislature could not so
far respect their principles as to memorialize Congress
for an enactment which all Republicans, native and
adopted, might support, rather than throw the element
of discord into our political discussions which should
be directed towards the best methods of releasing the
country from the wicked rule of the Slave Democracy.
It is time, however, that this question misnamed
Americanism should be met, and that the abuses of the
elective franchise, by which the Democracy of the North
— 16 —

usually secure their triumphs, should be prevented. We
are not afraid of the agitation which will follow a re
opening of the whole matter. We know that the adopted
citizens working with the Republican party for the prin
ciples of freedom are sincerely desirous of adopting any
just measures for securing purity in our elections, pre
venting the illegal naturalizations of aliens, and guard
ing the perfect expression of the popular will as Amer
icans themselves. The experience of the past six years
has taught them that they have nothing in the way of in
tolerance and proscription to fear from the American
people. The bugbear of Know-Nothingism has lost its
terror, and as might be expected of a body of men who
enjoy here the rational liberty they have been denied else
where, they grow more and more solicitous to preserve
that liberty to themselves, and to hand it down tO' their
children unimpaired. Massachusetts owes it to these men
to put under foot the injustice which her legislators have
proposed.
Tlie. editorialjyas widely quoted^ and it was unquestionably
one of thje^ decisive expressions that operated powerfully in
the furious, discussion that immediately swept over the^coun-
try. On March 25 the Daily Illinois State lournal at Spring
field published a half column editorial denouncing the meas
ure pending in the Old Bay State. Its drift and energy may
be inferred from its title: "Massachusetts' Constitution —
Shameful Attempt at Proscription."
On March_24__th£— Republican-State. Central Committee of
^yWi,sconsin_agTged.upon and published an Address "To the Peo
ple of Wiscon,sin,,_'L,. Its _occasion jwas the act submitted to the
voters of Massachusetts. After citing a series of resolutions
adopted by the state convention of their party in 1857 the Com
mittee condemn in no uncertain terms the proposed Amend
ment in the Old Bay State and they appeal to their Republi
can confreres in Massachusetts to "efface the single stain upon
that escutcheon whjch the Republicans of Massachusetts l]|ive
so nobly borne.". This pronouncement was published in The
Milzi'aukee Daily Sentinel in its issue of March 28.
'Thus The Davenport Daily Gazette on March 31 cited from it at
length in an' editorial ; and Garrison's Liberator in Boston reprinted it
entire in the issue of April 8. — 17 —

The next day The Press and Tribune of Chicago again
dealt with "Massachusetts and the Naturalization Laws," and
observed : "Everywhere the Republicans are speaking out man-
I fully and independently against the recent action of the Massa-
i chusetts Legislature. . . . There is no divided opinion upon
•the subject ^n any of the ^ree states of the Union, and it is
our deliberate conviction that even in Massachusetts the Re
publicans will vote in solid phalanx against it." The editorial
quotes at length from the statement of the Republican state
Central Committee of V/isconsin and concludes with the senti
ment and hope : "This is well done, and we hope to see the
Republicans of every State in the Union uniting in solemn
and emphatic protest a.gainst the Massachusetts proposition."
The pressure of public interest was constant for the next
day, March 30, The Press and Tribune took notice of some
"spirited resolutions" adopted by The Young Men's National
Republican Association of Cincinnati, Ohio, "condemnatory of
the attempt now being made in Massachusetts" and again ob-
\ serves : "The Republicans of Massachusetts owe it tO' them-
! selves and to their brethren of other states to put an emphatic
S negative upon the proposed amendment at the polls — a duty
I we doubt not they will most gladly perform."
Precisely similar sentiments were expressed at Springfield
on April 2, in an editorial of the State lournal in citing and
commenting upon some resolutions adopted at a meeting of
Germans of Toledo, Ohio, condemning the act of Massachu
setts and appealing to the voters, and particularly to the Repub
licans of that state to defeat the Amendment. The lournal
hopes that the Republicans of every state will, unite in a
"solemn and emphatic protest" against the proscriptive meas
ure submitted in Massachusetts. On April 5 the lournal tells
its readers that "The Massachusetts Constitution" receives an
"emphatic rebuke from Wisconsin"; and on April 8 it again
enlarges upon the pending proposal in Massachusetts dealing
with sentiments expressed by the Boston Traveler.
The notable speech of Mr. Carl Schurz in Faneuil Plall,
Boston, on _the_eyen.iiig_ of April 18 on "True Americanism"
which was a protest against the principle and policy of the
— 18 —

"Two Year" discrimination and a plea for its defeat, and the
rpmarkahle reception accorded the brilliant i'oung German ad
vocate of Milwaukee by the elite of Boston elicited som.e addi-
tional com.ments frcm The Prr.<;.<; giid Tribune. April 22. that
enhanced the aTitagnnT^m_to_svr.h proscriptive legislation.
The same journal on April 29 printed as an editorial article
the resolutions of the Republican State Central Committee of
Iov,-a adopted April 18, already referred to. A week later,
I\Iay 5, imder the caption '"^lassachusctts." the following edi
torial expression was given in respect of a recently published
letter of Senator Henry Wilson to Congressman -Gillette of
Connecticut :*
AMth rare courage, but with a degree of devotion to
the principles that underlie the Republican movement
that m,ight have been expected, Hon. Henrv Wilson,
Senator from 2^Iassachusetts, takes open and decided ob
jections to the tAvo year amendment of the ^Massachusetts
State constitution. His letter on the subject, printed at
[ length in all the Boston newspapers, is an able and ex-
! haustive discussion of the whole subject, so able that
we of the A^'est where the foreign element is most power-
1 ful, and where its dangers and advantages are properly
estimated, cannot see how a Republican can fail to be
\^quieted by its facts and reasonings. !Mr. Wilson seems
to know, as we do, that that portion of the foreign vote
which is not wedded by the CathoHc Church to Pro-
Slaverv^ Democracy in indissoluble bonds, will gladly join
in any just and proper movement by which the abuse of
the elective franchise may be prevented. Republican for
eigners desire nothing more than the purit\- of the ballot
box, and dread nothing more than the frauds by which
its value has been measurably destroyed. They want
just and salutary reform; not proscription. * * *
"We thank the Senator in the name of the Republi
cans of the V,"e;t. for his timely defense of the principles
of the party and the integrity of the organization; and
we trust that the appeal which he has made to the good
sense and honesty of his state will prove not to have been
made in vain."
' The initial paragraph of Senator Wilson's letter is reprinted in
the writer's article in Deutsch-Amerikanische Geschichtsblatter, voL
xiii, p. 212-213. — 19 —

The determination of the "Two Year" Amendment was to
be made on May 9 and it is clear that Messrs. Ray and Medill
had begun to suspect from sundry signs which they observed in
the reports from Massachusetts that the defeat of the proposi
tion was uncertain. For the next day there was published a
long leader in which the major purpose was to show that the
proposed Amendment and the perplexity of the Republicans
were really due to the machinations and plots of the Pro-
Slavery Democrats of the Puritan Commonwealth. There were
three political parties in Massachusetts — the Republicans, the
Americans and the Democrats, and of these the Democrats
easily and obviously held "the balance of power." The Ameri
can party for years had been striving to secure drastic meas
ures restricting the electoral privilege and rights as to public
office for naturalized citizens. The Republicans, it was con
tended, had steadily resisted their adoption. Finally the Demo
crats perceiving their opportunity had joined with the anti-
foreign propagandists and pushed the "Two Year" Amendment
through the General Court. The situation in the state at large
was more or less the same. The Republicans were working
against it : "But the Republicans alone cannot defeat it. Their
vote is nearly equal to that of the 'Americans' proper. The
Democrats hold the balance of power upon the question; and
our advices from Massachusetts lead us to believe that a secret
purpose exists on their part to vote for the amendment, partly
with the hope of placing the odium of its adoption on the Re
publicans, and partly because they would really prefer to have
the large masses of the anti-slavery foreign population dis
franchised. We warn our fellow citizens of foreign birth in
advance, of the trick of the slavery propagandists. They may
rest assured that the Republicans not only of Massachusetts but
everywhere are unanimous in their opposition to the proposed
amendment, and that it can only gain a footing through the
secret aid and votes of the Democrats. If the results on the
9th should be adverse to what Republicans of every state and
of every nationality ardently desire, the Pro-Slavery Democ
racy of Massachusetts will be responsible for it. The balance
of power is in their hands. Watch and see how they use it."
— 20 —

It needs hardly to be observed that The Press and Tribune
was manifestly hedging against the storm of criticism that
v.'ould break upon the Republican party in the event the
Amendment should carry at the polls. The argument put forth
is somewhat fanciful, not to say fallacious. Furthermore it
was not correct to say that all the leading Republican papers
and party leaders were actively opposed to the Amendment.
Even such a stout anti-slavery champion as Gen. Wm. Schou
ler, then editor of the Boston Traveler, supported the Amend
ment. While Senator Wilson openly opposed its adoption, the
majority of the party leaders either openly endorsed it or gave
it tacit support. Governor Banks had commended the principle
to the legislature and had signed it. Eight of the eleven Con-
gres.smen were listed as supporting it, among the number being
Charles Francis Adams" and Anson Burlingame. As to the
iniquity of the Democrats in conspiring to secure the adoption
of the measure for petty partisan advantage. Gen. Schouler
wrote Salmon P. Chase that the whole project was a scheme
of the friends of Senator Seward to undermine Governor
Banks among the Germans of the West and thus weaken his
strength before the national convention.^" IV.
The advices of The Press and Tribu-nc as to the prospects
of the passage of the "Two Year" Amendment were well
founded. The proposal carried at the election May 9. The
vote, as is usual with such a popular referendum, was light —
21,119 for, and 15,398 against the Amendment. The total
vote cast was about one fourth that cast for Fremont and
Buchanan in 1856. The measure was rejected in seven of the
fourteen counties of the Commonwealth and was given a
majority in the other seven. The seven counties wherein the
Amendment carried were tlie most populous counties : namely,
Bristol, Essex, Middleessex, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, and
'New York Tribune, May 17, 1859.
"Wm. Schouler to S. P. Chase (Mss.), Boston, May 3, 1859, in
Chase Correspondence in Historical Society of PennsyWania.
— 21 —

Worcester. With the exception of Northhampton, Springfield
and Worcester, the Am.endment carried in all of the leading
cities and towns: e. g., in Boston, Charleston and Cambridge;
in Fall River and Gloucester; in Lawrence and Lowell; in
Medford, Milford and Newburyport; in Roxbury, Salem and
Waltham. Even in Senator Wilson's hometown of Natick the
Am.endment was carried by a vote of 92 to 86.^^
Iristantjy the Democrats realized ..that they hacL a. new, war
club with which they cguldjDeiabor the Republicans and. play
vigorously upon the sensibilities of the Germans and the for
eign borri, tq, the detriment and etnba.rrassment of "the .party
of liberty and high ideals'' that prided itself upon its. opposition
to slavery and all forms of , race discrimination. Under the
new Amendment of Massachusetts a Southern Slaveholder,
or a runaway slave from the rice swamps of South Carolina or
the cotton fields of Mississippi could acquire the complete fran
chise in respect of the ballot and office-holding by a single
year's residence and such types of University bred men as —
Charles Bernays, A. Douai, Julius Froebel, Fred. Hassaurek,
Fred. Hecker, Carl Heinzen, George Hillgaertner, Francis A.
Hoffman, Francis Lieber, Fred. Kapp, Gustav Koerner, Ar
nold Krekel, Fred Munsch, Theo. Olshausen, E. Pretorious,
C. G. Ruemehn, Geo. Schneider, Franz Sigel, Rheinard Soi-
' ger, G. Struve, J. B. Stallo, Henry Villard and August Wil-
lich — these, and scores of like cultured men, would have to
live in that Commonwealth seven years before they could ex
ercise the highest privilege of an American citizen. The con
trast between the rights of an ignorant, stupid, and mayhap,
\ vicious negro and those of the literati of Europe's most re-
: nowned seats of learning presented a spectacle in contrasts
'that would arouse sensitive Germans to the highest pitch of
wrath. Such alert, far-seeing editors, as Messrs. Ray and
Medill of The Press and Tribune early anticipated with what
delight the Democrats would descant upon such an odious dis
crimination. "Address of His Excellency, Nathaniel P. Banks, to the Two
Branches of the Legislature of Massachusetts. Appendix, pp. ii-xv.
- 22 —

Prior to the first of JMay the Democratic papers had not
given much attention to the proposed Amendment. It was not
until they began to perceive how great was the indignation and
so manifest the belligerent activities of the German editors
and party leaders against the measure that they awakened to
its serious strategic importance as a political fact. The first
notev/orthy exnrsssipxiJnJIlkeJlJjicaaa^Xitiies , lh_e_chiei organ
of _S.enator., Douglas, was on Mjiy S in an editoriaLupcm^ '.'.The
Proscriptjon of Foreigners." On May 7 its batteries were
again turned upon the Republicans in an editorial with the cap
tion, "A Silly Effort to Shirk Responsibility" ; such attempts
as that of the Press and Tribune to get from under the load of
obliquy for the part taken by Republicans in the passage of the
act and its submission to the voters eliciting its finest scorn.
When the result of the election on May 9 became known The
Times again laid about with great gusto, saddling upon the Re
publicans the sole responsibility for the Amendment, precisely
as the Press and Tribune had prudently forewarned the public
would be done by the ungenerous and unscrupulous Demo
crats. The Times contemptuously asked the Press and Tribune to
explain and make some sort of a defence for the iniquity
wrought. The Republican organ while manifesting the usual
contempt and hauteur that editors are wont to exhibit anent
the pin-pricks and thrusts of contemporaries did not deem
it prudent to ignore the challenge, although it felt constrained
\to characterize the article of the Times as "a column of
twaddle;" and on May 14 it presented a half dozen reasons why
the Democrats should be directly charged with the offense of
conceiving, promoting and producing the odious measure. The
reasons given are both interesting and instructive and are
briefly summarized :
First, the whole number of votes in Massachusetts is about
150,000. Second, The Democrats in that state number about
50,000 all-told. Third, The total number of votes cast at the
election on May 9 was about 40,000, or about one fourth the
normal vote of the State. The. nuinb.er_who voted ffgoiMLthe^
Amendment }|ras_onZ2(_about^l7jC^O^{ihe_offi^ — 23 —

: the number to 15,398). Fourth, Plad the Democrats turned
I out and cast their ballots against the amendment it would have
[ been defeated by more than 25,000 votes. Fifth, The truth
' is that three-fourths of the Democrats stayed at home for the
1 express purpose of letting it pass; and a large majority of
1 those v/ho did go to the polls voted for it in order to throw the
' odium of the measure upon the Republicans. Sixth, Fully
three-fourths of all the votes thrown against it were cast by
Republicans. No party in Massachusetts was anxious to have
the amendment adopted, save the Democratic party which
hoped to make a little party capital out of it. The indigna
tion vented by the Times was the merest sham. Its editors,
in common with all the Democratic politicians in Chicago, were
glad that the amendment had been adopted, and if they had
lived in Massachusetts would have voted for it just as did
the editors of the Boston Post.
As Jove himself, as well as the lesser Gods, is wont now and
then to nod, and on occasion slump, and anon run amuck, it is
not strange that hard pressed editors, especially those who
serve as high priests at the oracles, suffer likewise and plunged
head formost into the pit of puerilities. The contention of
the Press and Tribune was compounded of crass assumption
and bland assertion, heedless of the prosaic probabilities that
usually control common sense and interpretation. If there was
a Republican state in the Union it was Massachusetts. The
anti-slavery forces, or the Republicans, had general charge of
I the ship of state; and all the honors and all the pains and
penalties of place and power attached to the party in office, re
sponsible for the general administration of affairs. The plea
of the Press and Tribune in mitigation, or rather in denial of
the charge lodged against the Republicans was so obviously
futile as to make one conclude that it was a reckless pretense
which the editors themselves were aware of and which they
would have given short shrift and repudiated with utter con
tempt had the shoe pinched the foot of the Democratic party.
The editorial demonstrates how hard put _th£__Repiibli€arrs
were to "save their face" as the parlance of the street Jvould_
phrase it. Tjie inanities of the editorial may suggest some-
— 24 —

wi2M.oijhei£jensej3j_the^despe£ate^ the. party, should
the_alarm cmd_ bejligerent actiyilj _pf ^ Germans,..,tllfitt ap-
parent in all of the northernf ree states west of New_England,
npt,be.j:ircumvented.„and...£Qnfjitei From all points of the
horizon they could observe sheet lightning and flashes of fire
that meant a gathering storm and the wreckage of party crafts
if the indignation and suspiciousness of the Germans could not
be allayed and their confidence in the character and good faith
of the Republican party renewed.
In full view of the facts just set forth we may now appre
ciate the remarkable demonstration among the Republican
leaders of Illinois during the two weeks between May 6 and
May 20. V.
On Tuesday morning, May 6, The Press and Tribune of
Chicago contained the following editorial :
LETTER FROM EX-GOV. GRIMES OF IOWA.
We publish in another column a letter from Gov. Grimes of
Iowa on the proposed two year Amendment in Massachusetts
called out by a note addressed to the Congressional Delegation
from that state by a number of leading German citizens. It is
an open, frank declaration of sentiment upon the subject in
volved, and corresponds fully with that entertained by the
Republicans, not of Iowa alone but of every State in the Union.
This editorial note calling attention to Senator Grimes' ^^
answer to the interrogatories of the Germans of eastern Iowa
was given a conspicuous place on the first page in the first
column near the top, so that all readers, casual and regular,
would be sure to observe and make note of it. The letter which
it commends to its readers and to the public is reproduced with
out abbreviation because of its important bearing upon subse
quent developments in Illinois.
To Messrs. Hillgaertner, Bittmann, Freund, Olshausen, Guelich
and others :
Gentlemen :
I have just had placed in my hands a copy of your letter
to the Congressional Delegation from Iowa, in which you pro
pound to them the following inquiries, viz.:
"Mr. Grimes was then the junior Senatpr of Iowa at Washington,
D. C. — 25 —

"1. Are you in favor of the naturalization laws as they now
stand, and particularly against all and every extension of the
probation time?
"2. Do you regard it a duty of the Republican party, as the
party of equal rights, to oppose and war upon each and every
discrimination that may be attempted to be made between the
native born and adopted citizens, as to the right of suffrage?
"3. Do you condemn the late action of the Republicans in
the Massachusetts Legislature, attempting to exclude the adopted
citizens for two years from the ballot box, as unwise, unjust, and
uncalled for?"
To each of these interrogations, I respond unhesitatingly in
the affirmative. In regard to the recent action of the Massachusetts Legisla
ture I have this to say: that while I admit that the regulation
sought to be adopted is purely of a local character, with which
we of Iowa have nothing whatever directly to do, and while I
would be one of the last men in the world to interfere in the
local affairs of a sovereign state, or with the action of any party
in that state upon local matters, yet I claim the right to approve
or condemn as my judgment may dictate. I believe the action
of the Massachusetts Legislature to be based upon a false and
y dangerous principle, and fraught with evil to the whole country,
and not to Massachusetts alone. Hence I condemn it and de
plore it, without equivocation or reserve. Knowing how much
the proposed constitutional provision will offend their brethren
elsewhere, the Republicans of Massachusetts owe it to their
party that this amendment shall be overwhelmingly voted down.
Yours truly,
James W. Grimes."
Burlington, Iowa, April 30, 1859.
f The response of Senator Grimes to his German constitu-
f ents is characterized by a conciseness, explicitness and lucidity
I that are delightful. There are no ifs, or ands, or buts that leave
' one in a fog of doubts as to meanings, or fears as to mental res-
l ervations. Again, he couples downright and outright asser
tion with caution and clearcut limitation of the sweep of his
declaration. He completely recognizes what may appropri
ately be designated as "northern states' rights" that in the de
cade of the Fugitive Slave law and the Dred Scott decision be
came a major tenet in the work-a-day creed of northern anti-
slavery champions that energized, directed and controlled much
of the discussion and practical politics and legal controversy
carried on in the north by Abolitionists and Republicans, espe
cially after the repeal of the Missouri Compromise in 1854. At
the same time he declares in unequivocal language his unqual-
" Reprinted in Weekly State Journal, May 12.
— - 26 —

ified opposition to any disturbance of the status quo as regards '
naturalization and the franchise, and to any sort of discrimina
tion between native and naturalized citizens. Finally, he sug
gests that while each state should be permitted to go her way
and do more or less as she or her citizens may please to do, we
have a grand common interest that is nation-v/ide and manifests
itself in our common Federal government. The conduct of one
state may affect adversely the feelings, if not the immediate
rights, of citizens in all the states in our great Commonwealth.
Consequently, if a local law or a policy gives grave offense in
other sections and works a revulsion of public sentiment dan
gerous to the Party preserving or seeking to secure the major
common interest, then the rule of comity should control, the
major interest should predominate over the minor or local in
terest. Senator Grimes does not specifically name the approach
ing presidential contest as the major consideration; but his
language and the drift of his thought obviously implies that he
had it in contemplation.
The interrogatories quoted in Senator Grimes' letter, the
character of the sentiments expressed in his response, and the
method of his exposition should be kept constantly in the fore
ground in considering the developments in Illinois that followed
after May 9; for they seem to give us the chief clue to the
course of events and to have been a guide or suggestion that
controlled the nature and form of expression.
Characterizing Senator Grimes' letter The Press and Trib-
jme.dsdziM. that Jiis_s£lltiraents_cQnsSEonded_yritlLjl^^
tertained by Republicans of "every state in the Union." The
assertion was somewhat stronger than the facts justiSed; but
it correctly stated the situation so far as the foremost anti-
slavery editors and spokesmen represented the Republican
party. Gideon Baily of The National Era; Samuel Bowles of
The Springfield, (Mass.) Republican; Wm. Cullen Bryant of
The N. Y. Evening Post; Wm. Lloyd Garrison of The Liber
ator, and Horace Greeley of the N. Y. Tribune, all these, the
cautious and conservative no less than the irrepressible fanatic
and radical, stood forth in opposition to the principle and pol-
— 27 —

V

icy of the "Two Year" Amendment and added their pleas to
the indignant protests of the Germans.
To an anxious inquiry of Mr. Carl Heinzen, editor of Der
Pionier, Lloyd Garrison at Boston branded the proposed
Amendment in The Liberator, April 8, 1859 as "an act of po
litical injustice * * * and we have scarcely a doubt that the
proposed amendment * * * will be rejected by a decided ma
jority." Greeley's Tribune on April 25 addressed an earnest, not to
say solemn "Word to the Bay State." Therein the people of
Illinois read : "But we pray the Republicans of Massachusetts
to vote down the proposed provision. It has been extensively
paraded as a bugbear before the eyes of Republicans of for
eign, especially those of German birth, and its adoption now
would work enormous mischief, especially throughout the Free
West. It might defeat the election of a Republican President
in 1860. Just vote it down, let reason resume her sway among
our Adopted citizens."
On April 28, The National Era printed at length an address
of the German Citizens of Toledo, Ohio, protesting the act of
Massachusetts and thus commended its sentiments : "We do
not wonder at the feeling manifested by our German fellow cit
izens, but let them remember that the Republican party stands
committed, not for, but against any such discrimination."
We have already noted that The Press and Tribune had
called the attention of its readers to the official pronouncements
of Republican leaders and bodies in various states protesting
against the proposed Amendment in Massachusetts, to the for
mal protest of the Republican State Central Committee of Wis
consin in March, and to a like action by the saine body in Iowa
in April. The readers of Greeley's Tribti.ne for May 3 read a
long and earnest Address of the Republican State Central Com
mittee of New York : among the signers being Horace Gree
ley, R. M. Blatchford, later one of President Lincoln's ap
pointees to the Federal Supreme court at Washington, and
Frederick Kapp. On May 11, The Press and Tribune informed
its constituents that another prominent Republican leader had
— 28 —

spoken out against the act of Massachusetts. As he was a
conspicuous figure in the national arena and regarded as among
the few upon whom the Republican nomination for the Presi
dency might fall in 1860, his expression was of more than com
mon interest. A portion of its editorial is given:
GOV. CHASE ON NATURALIZATION.
Gpvernor Chase of Ohio in forwarding to the State Cen
tral Committee a communication addressed to him by German
Republicans of Sandusky and vicinity with reference to the
proposed naturalization law in Massachusetts, takes occasion to
express his own views. He feels "very confident that the Com
mittee fully concur in the almost, if not entirely, unanimous
(Republican) opinion in this state, that no discrimination should
be made by amendment of a state constitution or otherwise
between citizens of foreign and native birth.
"Such has always been my opinion. I was therefore op
posed, as is well known, to the proposition urged upon the
consideration of our legislature, some two or three years ago,
// for the incorporation by amendment into our state constitution
of a provision similar to that proposed in Massachusetts, requir
ing one year's residence only after naturalization, instead of
two."
Writing apparently before the result of the election in
Massachusetts was known, Dr. Bailey noting with concern
"the sharp contest" within the Republican ranks of Massachu
setts over the wisdom of submitting and considering the "Two
Year" Amendment, observed :
"The Republicans of Iowa and other Western states have
sent to Massachusetts formal protests, in the name of com
mon cause of Republicans, against the ratification (of the
Amendment). Apart from the local injustice it will inflict upon
the adopted citizens of Massachusetts its effect upon the char
acter of the party, throughout the Union, as the conservator
of universal Freedom, will be injurious."
VI.
The facts just set out disclose clearly that the leaders of
the anti-slavery forces in all of the Northern States west of
New England, save New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and pos
sibly Indiana, looked upon the "Two Year" Amendment as a
serious menace to the Republican cause. They also make man-
— 29 —

ifest that the entire conser\^ative element of the party — ^if Dr.
Baile)- and Horace Greeley are fair samples — as well as the
radical element earnestly desired the defeat of the measure
because it was felt that approval of the measure would place
the party's chances in jeopardy in the approaching national
election. As most of the influential editors and responsible
leaders of the Republican parly assumed — ^at least proclaimed
their assurance and confidence — that the Amendment would
be decisively defeated by the Republican electors of Massa
chusetts, it was decidedly disconcerting, not to say distressing,
to learn from the returns on May 9 that the "odious Amend
ment" had carried by a considerable majorit}"^, carr^nng too in
the most populous counties and in the chief cities where wealth
and education maj' be presumed to be at their maximum.
The Press and Tribune might charge that the Democrats
were the real marplots in compassing the adoption of the 'Two
Year" restriction but its editors and all weatherwise political
leaders knew that the Germans and French and Scandinavians,
Bohemians, Hungarians and Swiss, adverseh- affected by such
legislation would not swallow such an explanation — the Re
publican part}- was in fuU control in Z^Iassachusetts jmd would
have to assume and carry all the obloquy and condemnation re
sultant from the passage of the act and the favorable action
thereon at the polls. Sundn.' ugly facts could not be ignored or
tossed aside. The Philadelphia platform of 1856 seemed to be
grossly disregarded. Public confidence among the Germans
in the reliabilit)- of the party as to its pledges was rudel)- shaken
by the conduct of the Republicans of ^Massachusetts. Alarm
and suspicion, discontent and dissension, revolt and secession
were not remote possibilities, but were imminent probabilities.
To dissipate this alarm became a matter of the greatest ur
gency. It was necessary immediately to conrince the Germans
that the Republicans in the \^'^est were not of the same ilk with
their brethren of the Old Bay State; that they did not con
template and would not give countenance to, or tolerate any
like proposal in local legislation. Convincing and conclusive
proof that the Republican leaders of Illinois were seized with
anxiety, that suggested panic, was given the public in an aston-
— 30 —

ishing demonstration. In the Week and a half following ]\Iay 9
every responsible Republican leader in Illinois came out in
the open and in the most explicit unequivocal fashion declared
y iself. The significance of the expressions here referred to are
so important in determining subsequent developments in the
career of Abraham Lincoln and played such a serious part in
controlling the course and drift of things generally and they
have been so utterly ignored — or rather they have been so ut
terly overlooked by all historians, that sundry literary canons
are violated and all of the communications are given in ex-
tenso. In this way only can the reader of the present day ap
preciate the contemporary importance of the matter in issue
and the enormous strategic significance attached to formal dec
larations by the responsible Republican leaders. The commun
ications are presented in chronological order, without com
ment. Analysis, comparison and interpretation will follow.

VII.
On the 16th of ^lay. The Press and Tribune of Chicago
reprinted from D'le Illinois Staats-Zeitung, the following letter
addressed to the editor thereof, ^Ir. George Schneider :
Galena, Illinois, May 11, 1859.
My Dear Sir:
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your favor
of yesterday propounding to me the following questions :
"1. Are you in favor of the naturalization laws as they
now stand, and particularly against all and every extension of
the probation [time] ?
"2. Do you regard it a duty of the Republican party, as
the party of equal rights, to oppose and war upon each and
every discrimination that may be attempted to be made between
the native-born and adopted citizens, as to the right of suffrage?
"3. Do you condemn the late action of the Republicans in
the Massachusetts Legislature, [for] attempting to exclude the
adopted citizens of two years from the ballot-box, as unwise,
unjust and uncalled for?"
In answer to the first question I state that I am in favor of
maintaining the present naturalization laws intact, and am utterly
opposed to extending the time of probation.
In regard to the second proposition : I most certainly regard
it as one of the highest duties of the Republican party to resist
— 31 —

all discriminations between native-born and adopted citizens as
to the right of suffrage.
Referring to the third question : I desire to say, I can find
no language to express my abhorrence of the action of those
Republicans in the Massachusetts Legislature who passed the
law proposing the Amendment to the Constitution of that State,
excluding the adopted citizens from the right of suffrage for
two years, and also the Republicans out of the Legislature who
have just voted for the adoption of the Amendment. This
action is the outgrowth of that "intolerant Know-Nothingism"
which culminated in what is known as the "Heiss" of 1855 and
is not only "unwise, unjust and uncalled for" but is a lasting
disgrace and reproach to the State. Denouncing Know-Nothing
ism in the heyday of its power and strength, I should be unjust
to myself if I did not now denounce its last and meanest act
in securing the adoption of the illiberal, unnecessary and cow
ardly amendment to the Constitution of Massachusetts. The
Republicans of Massachusetts — the Republicans in that State,
who have voted for the amendment, have placed themselves
beyond the pale of sympathy with the Republicans of the other
states, who universally condemn their action and who will not
hold themselves responsible for it in any way, shape, or
nature. I am Very truly yours,
(Signed) E. B. Washburne.
Three days later the same journal reprinted from the Staats-
Zeitung a letter from Congressman J. F. Farnsworth :
St. Charles, May 13, 1859.
Geo. Schneider, Esq.,
Editor "111. Staats-Zeitung."
Dear Sir : — I have received your letter of the 10th, in which
you allude to the Amendment of the Constitution of Massa
chusetts, recently adopted in that State, by which naturalized
citizens are debarred the right of voting until two years after
the period of their naturalization.
Although this action of Massachusetts may be regarded as
local, which cannot affect the citizens of other states, and with
which we are not directly concerned, yet I fully agree with you
in the expression that it is an "odious Amendment" — odious
because it is insulting and unjust to that class of citizens who
are affected by it. It discriminates between the native and the
adopted citizen in favor of the former. That is wrong; and as
a Republican, knowing something, I trust, of the principles of
that party, and of the sentiments of its leading members, I
believe I but echo the voice of the great mass of the Republican
party when I protest against any attempt, come from what
quarter it may, to fasten upon us or to make the Republican
party in any manner responsible for a principle like that involved
in the Massachusetts Amendment.
In my opinion, nine tenths of the Republican delegation in
Congress, at least, are opposed to any change of the present
— 32 —

naturalization laws. They are satisfied with those laws as
they now are.
These are at all events my sentiments, briefly expressed,
and you are at perfect liberty to publish them; indeed, I am
glad of the opportunity your note affords me of uttering my
opinions through the channel of your valuable paper.
Very truly yours, J. F. Farnsworth.
On Saturday evening. May 14, the Republicans of Spring
field appear to have met in a general mass meeting in the hall
of the Young Men's Republican Association. The nature and
earnestness and design of their proceedings are exhibited in a
most instructive manner in a special despatch that appeared
at length in The Press and Tribune, May 18. The despatch
with headlines follows :
THE MASSACHUSETTS AMENDMENT.
Resolutions of the Young Men's Republican Association at
Springfield. "Correspondence of the Press and Tribune."
Springfield, 111., May 15, 1859.
I forward the accompanying copy of the resolutions adopted
at a special meeting, held on the night of Mth inst., at the rooms
of the Young Men's Republican Association, in accordance with
the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Secretary be instructed to send a copy
of the resolutions adopted at this meeting to all the leading
Republican papers throughout this State, with a request that
they be published. Yours very respectfully,
John C. Barker,
Sec'y Y. M. R. A.
At a meeting held at the rooms of the Young Men's Re
publican Association, on Saturday evening. May Mth, the follow
ing resolutions were unanimously adopted :
Whereas, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, has by
recent vote, sanctioned a law depriving the foreign born Amer
ican citizens of the elective franchise for two years after nat
uralization ; and
Whereas, Silence thereto by political bodies elsewhere may
be constructed as an approval of such provisions; and
Whereas, It has been the practice of the (so called) Democ
racy, north and south, to lay to the charge of the Republican
Party all their own petty meannesses ; and
Whereas, The great Republican party in their platforms,
and elsewhere, have repudiated every principle that would in
— 33 —

any degree recognize any distinction between their fellow citi
zens of foreign birth and others; and
Whereas, We hold that every true Republican must rejoice
at the manner in which the foreign vote has lately rebuked the
demagoging Democracy, and shown, unequivocally, their warm
love of Liberty and Equal Laws; and
\^'HEREAS, They are one with us in sustaining the great
fundamental doctrine, enunciated by Jefferson, fought for by
^^'ashingto^, and defended and maintained by all the great and
good of every country, clime and age, "That all men are created
equal," therefore,
1st. Resolved, That we, Republicans of Illinois, regard with
feelings of scorn, detestation and contempt any act calculated in
any degree to overthrow the doctrines of the Declaration of
Independence, be it from -whom or v>-here it may.
2nd. Resolved, Bj"^ the Republicans of the city of Spring
field, Illincis. that, disclaiming all right or inclination to inter
fere with the action of a sister State, we protest decidedly and
solemnly against any provision by which a duly naturalized
foreigner must be in the United States a period beyond five
years, before he can lawfully vote; and assert that no discrim
ination should be made, by amendment of a State Constitution,
or otherwise, between citizens of foreign and citizens of native
birth. \^'heeeas. Our naturalized fellow citizens in the magnani
mous enthusiasm with which they united in our State, at the
recent elections, with their American brethren, have proven
themselves on the sacred side of Freedom and Reform, therefore
Resol\-ed, That we feel ourselves bound by every obligation
of dut\- and honor to oppose earnestly and persistently every
attempt to impair or abridge any privileges now enjoyed by
them or their fellow immigrants.
4th. And ^^'HEREAS, In the firm and manly position taken
by the Hon. Henry Wilson, of }ilassachusetts, on the question
of the naturalization laws, he has evinced the true principles and
spirit of the doctrines of the Republican Part\ ; as also have
Messrs. Schurz of Wisconsiii, Chase of Ohio, and Grimes of
Iowa; therefore
Resolved, That we most heartily concur in and endorse the
course pursued by these honorable gentlemen, and herewith
tender our most sincere thanks for the able manner in which
they have vindicated the integrity of the Republican Party.
James Ousley,
Jno. C. Barker, President pro tem.
Secretary.
Springfield, :May Mth, 1859.
The meeting at which the foregoing resolutions were
adopted was not a dull, "cut and dried affair." There were
speeches and apparentl}- a generous outpouring of intense feel
ing. Among the speakers was no less a notable than I\Ir. \\'il-
liam H. Herndon, the law partner of Abraham Lincoln and
— 34 —

later his biographer. His speech was evidently esteemed of
more than ordinary importance, either by the speaker or by
the audience, for it appeared at length in the columns of The
Daily State lournal on May 17 in its account of the proceed
ings of the meeting of Saturday night, as follows :
MASSACHUSETTS CITIZENSHIP.
Speech of Wm. H. Herndon.
Mr. Herndon, after rapidly surveying the state of Europe,
and the European crisis, and the struggles of the people of the
continent for liberty and nationality, complimented the Amer
ican people on their prosperity, peace and power, and spoke
substantially as follows :
Finally, Mr. President, we are gathered here in this hall
tonight — we Republicans, native and foreign-born — for the spe
cial purpose of giving vent to our sentiments and expression to
our ideas on the late act of Massachusetts in relation to her
naturalized citizens. We Republicans, as citizens of this city
and the State of Illinois, do not pretend that we have any
right to dictate to a sister State of this Union what institutions
she shall or shall not have. But as American citizens — as
Republicans — we have some dear rights ; and when any law of
any State projectingly acts upon us, reaches outside of that
State, and by its spring and sweep, injuriously and destructively
affects us, then we have an undoubted right to give speedy and
quick utterance to our sentiments, and expression to our ideas
in relation thereto. This far we go, but no farther. The late
act of Massachusetts touches the whole Republican party from
Maine to Georgia, and from New York to California, not only
now, but far distant in the future, unless' fully understood.
It is now well understood in Massachusetts that the Democ
racy of that State is partially, if not wholly, responsible for the
passage of the Constitutional provision, odious as it is. I now
hold a letter in ray hand from Boston, which says in substance
"that the Democracy really wanted the law passed; some voting
for it, some scattering tickets in its favor on the day of the
election, and all wanting it to pass, and voting stoutly for it.
They could have killed if it they had wished to do so."
Were we not now quickly to speak out our ideas on this
law of Massachusetts, it might be inferred, it would be meanly
implied by the corrupt Democracy for political purposes, that
the Republicans of Illinois approved of the act, together with
its cruel and destructive policy, and rank injustice to our
foreign-born citizens. The Republican principle on this ques
tion is — once an American citizen always an American citizen,
with all the burthens, rights and privileges attaching thereto, and
which is never to be taken away, except by forfeiture through
the man's own acts. This law of Massachusetts denies or repud
iates this, and we, as Republicans, do now and here say that we
most heartily and unanimously disapprove this law, because it is
contrary to fundamental principles, and for the following
reasons : — 35 —

First, because it is impolitic, and second, because it is wrong
and unjust to all that class of American citizens who happen to
be born on European soil, and others not Americans. These
citizens, intelligent, good and patriotic men, have fled from the
towering oppressive thrones — iron chains and glittering bayonets
of the despots of the Old World, and have landed among us
to make this their adopted free homes, supposing that there
would and should be equality — -at least, as broad as that laid
down in the Dred Scott case — among all American citizens.
We see, however, that they are to he somewhat mistaken, if the
Legislature of Massachusetts vitalizes this latent constitutional
power by an operative act.
This law is wrong and unjust. Once an American citizen
always so. The Republicans all over this State have taken
broad, deep and radical grounds against this law; against its
cruel impolicy and its stinging injustice; and so now and here
tonight, in this Republican hall, we solemnly protest against it,
in the name of Republicanism, and send out our protest to the
world. I have as a Republican long since and often in speeches and
in print — in private circles and on the stump, all over this State,
expressed my views on this subject, and have said that I know
of no distinction among men, except those of the heart and
head. I now repeat that, though I am native born, my country
is the W'orld, and my love for man is as broad as the race, and
as deep as its humanity. As a matter of course I include native
and foreign people, Protestant and Catholic, "Jew and Gentile."
I go the full length of justice to all men — equality among all
American citizens, and freedom to the race of man. That
party — that class — that man or party who adopts different ideas
and expresses them by word or act — gives vent by tongue or
deed to them — is cruelly or wickedly despotocratic, though it may
call its principles Democratic. In the center of its heart it is a
despotism, soon to bloom into one-man, iron-willed Absolutism.
Names are nothing, but principles are as deep as the world.
The roots of things — the purposes and intents — are the tests.
Look at this — justice and liberty to all men, and then at this —
justice and liberty to a special few, and they to judge of the
times and necessities. In the one is Heaven's justice broad and
deep, and in the other despotism.
Republicans, score deep on your banner mortised and but
tressed on the Philadelphia platform, and let there be no cow
ardly dodging for timid policy's sake from this, this ever-living
vital principle, liberty and equality to all American citizens,
native or foreign born, and freedom and justice to the race of
men around the globe. With these principles nothing can impede
your young, living, irresistible power, or prove victorious over
you, for you have the sweep and power of God's great rushing
currents to bear you on to victory o'er the world.
Mr. President, I conclude as I began, and by this principle
I am willing to live or die — freedom and justice to all men —
equality and liberty to all American citizens, native or foreign
born, Protestant or Catholic ; and may the chains of universal
or partial despotism on mind or body — on individual or the
race, be shivered and broken and snapt; and ring out loud and
— 36 —

long against the Bastlle prison doors, crossed barred and iron
grated — ^"Keeper, open this door and let us go out joyous,
bounding and happy, for we too now are free by God's great
law."
Tuesday, May 17, was a busy day for the Republican lead
ers of Illinois, for on that date three of the prominent spokes
men of the party composed extended and important replies to
letters addressed to them by committees of Germans asking
them for specific declarations as to their attitude on the sub
jects referred to. One was written by Mr. N. B. Judd, as a
member of the Republican State Central Committee; another
was written by Abraham Lincoln, and the third by Mr. Lyman
Trumbull, U. S. Senator. They are presented in the order
named : Chicago, May 17, 1859.
To Messrs. Theobald Pf eiffer, E. Violand and Louis Deider :
Gentlemen : — ^Your communication on behalf of the German
Club of Peoria reached Chicago during my absence in a neigh
boring State.
The State Central Committee is composed of eleven mem
bers, viz. : two from the State at large and one from each Con
gressional District. The distance at which they reside from
one another renders it impracticable to assemble the Committee
to act upon the subject matter of your communication. I had
supposed that the position of the Republican Party of Illinois,
in upholding equality among citizens, whether native or adopted,
and hence its opposition to any burdens or restrictions upon the
right of suffrage that should distinguish between classes of citi
zens, was so well defined that it did not require a repetition.
The first State assemblage in Illinois, called for the purpose of
organizing a resistance to the slave oligarchy, and at which the
Republican Party was organized, met at Bloomington on the
29th day of May, 1856.
' That Convention did not limit its action to measures only
looking to the resistance of slave encroachments upon the rights
of freemen, but it met the other question of Proscription, and
adopted the following resolution :
"Resolved, That the spirit of our institutions, as well as
the Constitution of our country, guarantees liberty of conscience,
as well as political freedom ; and that we will proscribe no one,
by legislation or otherwise, on account of rehgious opinion, or
in consequence of place of birth."
The Convention did not confine itself to words, but by its
acts proved its good faith by nominating for some of its highest
places your countrymen, Hon. Fred. Hecker and Hon. Francis
A. Hoffman. The Convention that nominated John C. Fremont assembled
at Philadelphia in June of that year, and it confirmed the posi-
— 37 —

tion taken by Illinois hy adopting as a part of its National Plat
form the following resolution :
"Believing that the spirit of our institutions, as well as the
constitution of our country, guarantees liberty of conscience
and equality of rights among citizens, we oppose all legislation
impairing their security."
The incorporation cf that resolution into the Philadelphia
Platform was effected principally by the united efforts of the
delegates from the State of Illinois, and by no one was it urged
more earnestly than by our German friends in the delegation,
George Schneider of the Staats-Zeitung, Greiun (Grimm?) of
Belleville and H. Kreismann of this city. In the contest that
followed, the Illinois Republicans maintained the position thus
taken. The party has had another State Convention, viz : in
1858, and your countryman, Gov. Koerner, was its presiding
officer. Such have been the principles and practices of the
Republicans in Illinois and the history of the party on this ques
tion of Proscription.
The local history of the party will show that in all cases
where it had the power, offices, honors and rewards have been
meted out regardless of nationality or birthplace. The Repub
lican press condemned, in no measured terms, this unjust dis
crimination proposed by Massachusetts as wrong and anti-
Republican in principle, and oppressive to that noble band of
adopted citizens, who, believing in freedom, free labor, free
homes and free lands, had, side by side with the native-born,
fought the political battles of freedom.
As a member of the State Central Committee, it never
occurred to me that any one could doubt the hostility of the
party in this State to any change in the laws by which the
equality among citizens should be disturbed.
I believe that all the members of the committee agree with
me in the opinion that all discrimination between native and
adopted citizens is unjust in itself and a violation of the equal
rights which are the basis of our free institutions. The action
of a small fraction of the people of Massachusetts is, in my
opinion, an act of tyranny and oppression that should be rebuked
by the Republicans throughout the Union.
Respectfully yours, N. B. Judd,
Chairman Rep. State Cen. Com.
Wednesday ir.orning. May 18, the Daily State lournal of
Springfield, contained the following editorial which is repro
duced in extenso:
MR. LINCOLN ON THE MASSACHUSETTS
AMENDMENT.
We are indebted to Dr. Canisius for a copy of a letter
written by Mr. Lincoln, in reply to a note requesting his views
upon the late action of the State of Massachusetts in restricting
the right of suffrage. We subjoin the letter together with the
note which accompanied it:
— 38 —

Springfield, May 17, 1859.
Editors Journal: —
I have received today a letter from Hon. Abraham Lincoln
in regard to the "Massachusetts Amendment" and the proposed
"fusion" of the Republican party with other opposition elements
in 1860. This letter of one of the gallant champions of our
State is in accordance with the views of the whole German
population, supporting the Republican party, and also with the
views of the entire German Republican press. It therefore
would afford me pleasure if you would give it publicity through
your widely circulated journal. I am, yours, etc., Theodore Canisius.

Springfield, May 17, 1859.
Dr. Theodore Canisius :
Dear Sir : — Your note asking, in behalf of yourself and
other German citizens, whether I am for or against the consti
tutional provision in regard to naturalized citizens, lately adopted
by Massachusetts, and whether I am for or against a fusion of
the Republicans and other opposition elements, for the canvass
of 1860, is received.
Massachusetts is a sovereign and independent State; and it
is no privilege of mine to scold her for what she does. Still,
if from what she has done an inference is sought to be drawn
as to what I would do, I may without impropriety speak out.
I say, then, that as I understood the Massachusetts provision, I
am against its adoption in Illinois, or in any other place, where
I have a right to oppose it. Understanding the spirit of our
institutions to aim at the elevation of men, I am opposed to
whatever tends to degrade them. I have some little notoriety
for commiserating ihe oppressed condition of the negro ; and
I should be strangely inconsistent if I should favor any project
for curtailing the existing rights of white men, even though
born in different lands and speaking different languages from
myself. As to the matter of fusion, I am for it, if it can be had on
Republican grounds, and I am not for it on any other terms.
A fusion on any other terms would be as foolish as unprincipled.
It would lose the whole North, while the common enemy
would still carry the whole South. The question of men is a
different one. There are good patriotic men and able statesmen
in the South, whom I would cheerfully supp.jrt if they would
now place themselves on Republican ground; but I am against
letting down the Republican standard a hair's breadth.
I have written this hastily, but I believe it answers your
questions substantially. Yours truly, A. Lincoln.

We are glad Mr. Lincoln has written this letter. It is
plain, straightforward and directly to the point. It contains not
one word too much, neither does it omit anything of importance.
— 39 —

Mr. Lincoln occupies the same ground as does the entire Repub
lican parr>- of the nation, and his letter will meet \rith dieir
cordial concurrence and sympathy.
The next day. Thursday, the State Journal contained the
following response of Senator L>Tnan TrumbuU to a letter ad-
dres=ed to him by Dr. Canisius. Cliarles Hermann and others,
the same committee probably that addressed ^Ir. Lincoln: the
editorial comment in introduction closed with the observation:
"It has the ring of true metal." .Alton. HI, May 17. 1S59.
Messrs. Theodore Canisius. Charles Hermann and Others:
Gentlemen: — L'niike some of our political opponents who
refuse to express their opinions on the propriety- of introducing
slavery into Kansas, because they do not live in the Territory,
saying that if the people of Kansas [want it] it is their right to
have it and if they do not want it, they may. if the courts will
let them, exclude it, and it is nobcdys business out of the
Territorj-, which they do, I am ready on all proper occasions to
express my condemnation of illiberal and anti-Republican move
ments, no matter where they originate.
Lo^"ing freedom and hating despotism, I can never be indif
ferent as to which shall prevail in any country, and while I
recognize the authority of each State in the L'nion to determine
for itself the qualit-.cations of its voters. I deny the position
assumed by our opponents, that the citizens of ever\- other State
are precluded from the expression of any opinion as to the
propriet}' of its action. I have, therefore, no hesitation in
answering your inquiries in regard to the recent amendment of
the Massachusetts constituticn. excluding persons hereafter
naturalized, for two years thereafter, from the right of suffrage.
Such a provision creates an unjust discrimination between citi
zens, folates the great principle of equal rights, and is in the
ver>- teeth of the Republican creed. Massachusetts in adopting
it has placed herself in opposition to even.- other Republican
State, and to the Republican party in the country, which stands
pledged in its Xational platform te} oppose j'.l legislation impair
ing equality of rights among citit:ens. ^^^lile, tfierefore, I con
demn the action of Massachusetts. I think the course of the
Democrats, in stri^Tng to make political capital out of it, deserv
ing of still greater condemnation. In the first place they stultify
themselves before the country and repudiate the so-called great
principles of leaving the people of each state perfectly free to
form and regulate Qieir own domestic institutions in their own
v.ay. by saj-ing anj-thing about the internal affairs of Massa
chusetts. Their mouths, if governed by principle, should be
forever shut, no matter what Massachusetts has done. Secondly,
they themselves in their attempts to deprive foreign residents
in Minnesota of any participation in the formation of their
State government, and rights of suffrage, long enjoyed, were
guilty of greater outrage than the people of Massachusetts, for
the latter (as I understand) have not attempted to interfere
— 40 —

with the rights of suffrage enjoyed by foreigners now residents
of the State, but only to prescribe a different rule for those who
shall come hereafter ; while the Democratic party, not of an
isolated State, but of the Nation, undertook in Congress to
take away from persons of foreign birth, then residing in Min
nesota, the right of suffrage which under previous acts of Con
gress and the Territorial Legislature they had long enjoyed.
In this attempt they were defeated by the Republicans. Let
Democrats answer for this attempt of the majority of their
party in the nation to rob foreign residents in Minnesota of
previously vested rights, before they attempt to arraign Repub
licans of the Nation for the action of a few in Massachusetts,
contrary to the declared creed of the party.
Very respectfully, Lyman Trumbull.
On May 21, The Press and Tribune contained the follow
ing resolutions adopted at Peoria :
"Resolutions of the Republicans of Peoria." — At a meeting
of the Republicans of Peoria, of which Dr. J. D. Arnold was
the President and Wm. L. Avery Secretary, L. R. Webb from
the Committee on Resolutions reported the following, which
was unanimously adopted :
The Republicans of the city of Peoria, in meeting assembled,
for the purpose of considering the recent act of the people of
Massachusetts imposing additional restrictions upon the rights
of suffrage of foreign-born citizens of that State, do
Resolve, That, as one of the charges preferred by our fore
fathers in the Declaration of Independence against the King of
Great Britain was that he was endeavoring to prevent the popu
lation of these states, for that purpose of obstructing the law
for the naturalization of foreigners and refusing to encourage
their emigration hither, so we, viewing the recent unjust, oppres
sive and intolerant action of the people of Massachusetts,
believe it to be incumbent on us to denounce the same in un
measured terms, as directly promoting the very evils our fore
fathers complained of, and as contrary to the spirit of our free
institutions. Resolved, That believing, as we do, that the people of Illi
nois are greatly indebted to the foreign-born citizens for the
absence of human slavery in our midst, and its numerous
attendant evils, and also believing that the spirit of our institu
tions and the constitution of our country both guarantee liberty
of conscience and equality of rights among citizens, we deem it
to be the policy and the duty of the Republican party to invite
and encourage the affiliation and cooperation of all men, foreign
as well as native, to the end that the cause of freedom may be
promoted and the material growth and prosperity of our
country may be augmented.
The two letters which follow were taken from the same
journal from which the resolution just given is reprinted. The
first one appeared in the issue of the 24th and the second in
— 41 —

the issue of the 26th. The reasons for tlie delay in their pub
lication in tlie American press was probably due to the cir
cuitous transmission they underwent. Translation for the
pages of the Staats-Zeitung, to whose editor they were both ad
dressed, and then their subsequent publication in The Press
and Tribune. Princeton, May 18, 1859.
Editor of Illinois Staats-Zeitimg :
Dear Sir : — I have received yours of the 16th inst., request
ing rcy viev.s on the following questions :
"1. Are you in favor of the naturalization laws as they
now stand, and particular!}' against all and every extension of
the probation [time] ?
"2. Do you regard it a dut\- of the Republican party, as
the part;- of equal rights, to oppose and war upon each and
every discrimination that maj' be attempted to be made between
the native-bom and adopted citizens, as to the right of suffrage?
"3. Do you condemn the late action of the Republicans in
the Massachusetts Legislature, [for] attempting to exclude the
adopted citizens of two years from the ballot-box, as unwise,
unjust and uncalled for?"
In reply I would say. that I am in favor of the naturaliza
tion laws as thej' are, and should oppose am' law calculated to
prejudice the rights of the adopted citizen. This is in substance
a reply to your second question. It is. without question in my
mind, the mission and duty of the Republican party to oppose
all and every discrimination between the adopted and native
citizen. In this respect there should be one rule for the stranger
and the heme bom.
In answer to the third inquirj- I do not see what moral
right the !Massachusetts Legislature or the majority of her
people have to suspend [or] temporarilj' to abrogate, for it
amounts to this, the right of suffrage of a certain dass of her
citizens. The amendment therefore, to which j'ou allude, is,
in my opinion, "unwise, unjust and uncalled for." I deprecate
this the more as it tends to distract and alienate those from co
operation with the Republicans who are reallj' with us in regard
to the great objects we would achieve. Mj' notions of human
rights are such as to incline me to the largest liberality in
bestowing the right of suffrage. Whoever is arrayed on the
side of Freedom in its conflict with Slavery, of whatever clime
and of whatever creed, the same politically is "my mother and
sister and brother." Yours truly, Owen Lovejoy.

— 42 —

Chicago, May 20, 1859.
Editor Staats-Zeitung:
Dear Sir : — On my return from Supreme Court last evening,
I found your note of the 18th, asking my opinion as "Chairman
of the Republican Central Committee of Chicago" of the recent
Amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution.
I understand that Amendment to impose upon naturalized
citizens a restriction of the right of suffrage not required of
citizens born in this country. I regard this as unwise, unjust,
anti-Republican, and against the spirit, if not the letter, of the
Constitution of the United States. When the Constitution gave
to Congress the power "to establish an uniform system of nat
uralization," and provided "that the citizens of each State should
be ' entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of
the several States," it certainly could not have been expected
that any State would impose restrictions upon the exercise of the
rights of suffrage not required by the naturalization laws of the
Federal Government.
But whatever may be the Constitutional right of Massa
chusetts to adopt this amendent, I regard it as most unwise,
unjust, and antagonistic to the great principles upon which the
Republican party is based. It is unwise and unjust to create a
distinction between a native and a naturalized citizen. When a
man becomes naturalized, he voluntarily adopts our country as
his own. He makes our country his country by choice, by
preference. He becomes one of us. His home is with us. His
fortunes, his interests, his family, his all, become identified with
ours. Is it not as wise as it is just, that when he has thus
clothed himself with the rights of American citizenship, he
should be made to feel that he was a welcome addition to the
great brotherhood of freemen which compose the Republic?
While all must respect the feeling of attachment with which
all good men remember their Fatherland, yet it is clearly the
policy of our country so to treat her adopted citizens as to
make them regard all nationalities as secondary to the grand
idea of American citizenship.
This amendment, creating, as it does, an invidious distinc
tion, has a tendency to keep alive and active that class feeling
which all should seek to suppress. This discrimination which it
creates is as unjust to the memory of the dead as it is to the
worth and merit of the living. The history of our country is
brilliant with the names of those born in a foreign land, whose
love of our free institutions induced them to connect their
fortunes with ours. The names of La Fayette, of Gallatin, Kos-
ciu.5ko, Pulaski, De Kalb, Steuben, Emmett, and many others
in our earlier and later history, show that however a narrow
and illiberal feeling may have at times manifested itself in par
ticular localities, our country as a whole, in its policy towards
the foreign-born, has been liberal and generous. Indeed, it is
so obviously the interest of our country to encourage emigration
and thereby develop our vast territories still unimpaired, that
no other policy can prevail. The advantages of immigration
here at the West, and especially to our own State and City, are
so apparent, there has never been any difference of opinion
among us on the subject. Our naturalized citizens have brought
— 43 —

industry, enterprise, wealth, good morals, and all the elements
of prosperity to the Northwest, and here they have engaged in a
generous and not unsuccessful rivalry with us, in building up
and advancing the prosperity of our common country. I am sure
there are none among us who would lessen their privileges. The
policy of encouraging immigration and felicitating the settlement
and naturalization of foreigners among us, in the early history of
the Republic, found its most earnest advocate in Thomas Jeffer
son, that great statesman whose disciples are today found in the
Republican party alone. In this policy, as upon the question of
slavery, the so-called Democratic party has abandoned the prin
ciples of Jefferson. He embodied in the Declaration of Inde
pendence, as one of the grounds of separation from the mother
country, that "He (the King of Great Britain) has endeavored
to prevent the population of these States ; for that purpose
obstructing- the laws for the naturalization of foreigners, etc."
The Republican party, recognizing as the basis for their
organization the great principles of liberty so earnestly advo
cated by Jefferson, are seeking to bring back the Government to
the policy of its founders. Since the so-called Democratic party
has passed into the exclusive control of the Slave Power, it has
very naturally manifested a jealousy of the free labor of
the Old World, and its policy towards it has been narrow and
unjust. The rapid addition of Free States in the Northwest,
the result, in a large degree, of the emigration from abroad, has
very naturally alarmed the Slave Power. Hence the illiberal
provision of the Kansas-Nebraska acts ; hence the voting down
by Democratic slaveholding Senators of the amendments pro
posed by Republican Senators, to encourage the settlement of
the public lands. Hence the defeat, by the same influence, .of
the Homestead Bill; hence the efforts of the pro-slavery Demo
cratic party to extend slavery over free territory; hence the
infamous Kansas outrages and Lecompton swindle.
The policy of the Republican party is to secure the unoccu
pied portion of this continent to the free labor of the world.
The Democratic party controlled by the Slave Power is strug
gling to Africanize it, to appropriate it to slave labor. Hence
that party is the natural enemy of the free labor which comes
to us from abroad. The issue for 1860 is made up. The
triumph of the Republican party will secure the public lands to
free labor, without regard to birth-place.
The tpumph of the Democratic party will secure, so far
as the influence of the Federal Government can control it, the
territories to slave labor. To furnish means of accomplishing
this the slave trade is already openly, and under a Democratic
Administration, carried on with impunity.
With this great issue before us, I doubt not the American
and German Republicans will be found fighting side by side for
freedom and free labor.
Our only strife will be to see who will do most to secure
the success of those great principles of universal liberty which
animate alike the American and the German Republican.
Very truly yours,
Isaac N. Arnold,
Chairman Republican Central Committee.
— 44 —

Sufficient has been given, perhaps, to indicate the intensity
of public interest during May in the "Two Year" Amendment
among the electors of Illinois. The assertion, however, be
comes incontrovertible if one will examine the amount and
character of the attention given the subject in the foremost
papers of Illinois, if we merely note the number of editorials ;
if we canvass the character of their expression and their
length if we list the number of reprints of articles from other
papers dealing with the subject, of communications thereon, of
resolutions and speeches dealing with the Amendment. Some
what of the attention and space devoted to it may be inferred
from foregoing exhibits but the intensity of public interest can
best be realized by a mere catalog of the titles. As a summary
and premise for the analysis which follows two lists are here
given. They are taken from two of the leading dailies of
Chicago : The first from a Republican organ ; the second from
a Democratic organ.
The Press and Tribune contained the following articles, edi
torial and other:
April 29 — "Republican State Central Committee of Iowa and the
Naturalization Question" — Reprint of resolutions.
May 5— "Massachusetts"— Editorial.
May 6 — "The Two Year Amendment in Massachusetts" — Editorial.
May 6 — ^"The Massachusetts Two Year Amendment" — Letter from
Senator Grimes of Iowa — Reprint.
May 11 — ^"Two Year Amendment in Massachusetts" — Editorial.
May 11 — "Gov. Chase on Naturalization" — 'Editorial.
May 14 — ^"The Massachusetts Amendment" — Editorial.
May 16 — "The Massachusetts Amendment"— Letter from Hon.
E. B. Washburne — Reprint.
May 17 — ^"The Massachusetts Amendment" — Editorial.
May 18 — '"The Democracy and the Massachusetts Amendment" —
Editorial. May 18 — "The Massachusetts Amendment — ^Resolutions of the
Young Men's Republican Association of Springfield" — Reprint.
May 21— "The Massachusetts Amendment :" (1) "Lincoln's Letter
to Dr. Canisius." (2) "Resolutions of the Republicans of Peoria."
(3) "Speech of W. H. Herndon."
May 23 — Senator Trumbull to Dr. Canisius.
May 23 — I. N. Arnold to Editor of Illinois Staats-Zeitung.
May 24 — "The Massachusetts Amendment." Reprints Lovejoy's
Letter to Editor of Illinois Staats-Zeitung.
May 26— "The Massachusetts Amendment." Reprints Judd's Let
ter to Germans of Peoria.
May 28— Letter of F. B. Blair on the Massachusetts Amendment.
— 45 —

The Chicago Times, the particular organ of Senator Doug
las, during the same period, had the following articles upon
the same subject:
June 6— Reprint of Ohio State Republican Platform.
May 5 — "The Proscription of Foreigners" — Editorial.
May 7— "A Silly Effort to Shirk Responsibility"— Editorial.
May 11— "Interesting to Adopted Citizens" — Editorial.
May 13— "Republicans and the Two Year Amendment" — Editorial.
May 17 — "Governor Banks and the Two Year Amendment" —
Editorial. May 19 — "Republicans and Foreigners" — Editorial.
May 22— "The Panic in the Republican Party"— Editorial.
May 24 — "Mr. I. N. Arnold's Letter"— Editorial.
May 26— "Where is Mr. Judd ?"— Editorial.
May 27—" 'Gov' Judd's Letter"— Editorial.
June 2 — '"The Republicans and Their Negro Allies in Massa
chusetts" — Editorial.
June 10 — ^"The Disabilities of Non-Citizens" — Editorial.
June 15 — "Naturalization and Voting"- — Editorial.
Editors of our daily press are keen watchers of the currents
and tides of popular interest. They are concerned with little
else and give scant consideration to dead eddies, mere drift
wood and back wash. They are seldom aroused by abstrac
tions, "mere theories" or remote eventualities. The clash and
clutch of human interests in the madding crowd hold them
always in thrall. VIII.
The exhibits just given indicate beyond all cavil that the
Republicans of Illinois felt that they confronted a crisis and
they appreciated that instant and decisive action was impera
tive if the plans of the party in the impending national cam
paign were not to be upset and their chances of success in
1860 obliterated. Sundry facts are worthy of note.
The Germans of Illinois took their cue manifestly from
the Germans of Iowa. This is obvious in the letters addressed
by Mr. Schneider to Congressmen Farnsworth, Lovejoy and
Washburne : for the questions the latter specifically answer are
precisely those drafted by Dr. Hillgaertner, et al., and pre
sented to Senator Grimes and Harlan of Iowa. Mr. Schneider
probably acted on his own initiative in presenting the inter
rogatories ; but it would not be strange if Dr. Hillgaertner had
— 46 —

first suggested the manoeuvre to him, as he Vv-as familiar with
German leaders in Chicago and intimately acquainted with the
editorial force of the Staats-Zeitung.
There was not, however, the concerted action in Illinois
that there was in Iowa. Mr. Schneider appears to have acted
singly and for himself in the letters he addressed to Messrs.
Farnsworth, Lovejoy, Washburne and Arnold. Two of his
letters were dated on the 10th; one on the 18th and the other
on the 20th. Committees seem to have been organized as in
Iowa but without concert of action, one with another. Thus the
committee at Peoria does not appear to have included the mem
bers of the one at Springfield. Dr. Theodore Canisius, Charles
Hermann and others at Springfield addressed the same letter
to Messrs. Lincoln and Trumbull.
The influence of proceedings in Iowa on the course of
events in Illinois is indicated not only in the similarity of the
methods pursued, in the questions submitted, and in more or
less concert of action, as in Iowa, but in the particular men
tion of Senator Grimes — naming him with Senator Wilson of
Massachusetts and Mr. Carl Schurz of Milwaukee — in the res
olution adopted at Springfield on the night of May 14. The
specific commendation of Iowa's junior Senator is rather sub
stantial evidence indicating the direct and positive influence of
the antecedent developments in Iowa upon the course of events
in Illinois. The stress of things produced by the demand of the Ger
mans for explicit declarations from the Republican leaders
in and about Chicago is illustrated by a minor incident not un-
instructive here. Mr. N. B. Judd, next to Messrs. Lincoln
and Trumbull was perhaps the most influential party chief
among the Republicans of Illinois, at least of northern Illinois.
For some reason his letter of May 17, of even date with Lin
coln and Trumbull's responses to Dr. Canisius was not published
in the American papers until May 26. Apparently the fact that
he had been addressed by Messrs. Peiffer, Violand and Deider
of Peoria was either known or suspected ; for on May 26, The
Times of Chicago came out with a half column leader headed :
"Where is Mr. Judd?" The public was told that "Washburne,
— 47 —

Lovejoy, Trumbull, Arnold, Lincoln and a number of Repub
licans in Illinois have published letters repudiating the actions
of the Republicans of Massachusetts * * but never a word
from Mr. Judd." The Democrats had a fine opportunity for
first class bear-baiting and did not refrain. Mr. Judd's letter
appeared in The Press and Tribune on the same morning that
The Times contained the editorial just cited.
If any additional proof were needed to clinch the assertion
of The Express and Herald of Dubuque, that the Republicans
of Illinois were in a real panic it is abundantly afforded
in the contents of the resolutions adopted at Peoria and Spring
field. Their language not only imports that the Germans had
been grossly mistreated, insulted and outraged by the "Two
Year" Amendment in Massachusetts but it declares that the
liberties and the best memories of the American people were
thereby assailed and put in danger. One of our major griev
ances against King George III was his harsh treatment of the
forbears of the Germans and for them our fathers spilt their
blood and treasure in the glorious revolution. More than this
the Peorians proclaim that the freemen of the North and of
Illinois in particular were "greatly indebted to the foreign born
citizens for the absence of slavery in our midst and its numer
ous attendant evils." Such allegation, while interesting and
instructive and supremely flattering to the amour propre of the
sensitive Germans, must have been astonishing information to
lusty Americans and Know-Nothings, information that must
have produced either complete stupefaction or intense exasper
ation and revulsion. But whether true or fallacious, the fact
that the Republicans of Peoria would thus proclaim their ap
preciation of the momentous influence of the Germans in our
common life and polity from the outset of our national Hfe
demonstrates the alarm, not to say the desperation, of the Re
publican managers in Illinois in May, 1859.
The same conclusion follows from the character of the
contents of the resolutions adopted at Springfield. Their lan
guage is not so pronounced and sweeping as was the case with
those adopted at Peoria — the difference in the number of Ger
mans in the immediate neighborhood may account for the dif-
— 48 —

ference in the ardor and anxiety displayed — nevertheless the
same alarm is exhibited. Moreover, it was displayed in a prac
tical fashion that indicated that the party managers deemed en
ergetic action urgent. The managers and the mass meeting
directed the officers of the meeting to send copies of the res
olutions to all parts of the state and to secure their widest pub
lication. Such a proceeding by practical politicians in the state
capital, at the instigation, or at the least with the approval of
the party chiefs, was a fact of the deepest significance. Little
bands or groups of missionaries and philanthropists frequently
proceed thus, without political significance ; but such a meeting
as that on the Mth of May in the Republican Hall and such a
series of resolutions and such a program of propagandism were
facts of maximum political significance.
Contemporary accounts do not show whether or not Mr.
Lincoln attended the meeting at Springfield on May 14 ; but it
is unlikely that be did do so, as the fact would have been widely
heralded. We may assume that the meeting, however, was not
without his knowledge and approval for it is inconceivable that
local leaders, many of whom were ardent promoters of his po
litical interests, would go ahead reckless of his adverse opin
ion. This conclusion is almost compelled by the presence and
participation in the proceedings of his law partner, Mr. Wm.
H. Herndon. Partners in practical business are not necessarily
co-workers in politics. But in this instance there was complete
reciprocity of interest — although not perfect accord always in
practical application of views or concurrence as to time and
place for expression or action — and a mutual consideration that
makes certain the conclusion that Mr. Herndon did nothing and
said nothing that night without feeling that his distinguished
associate in business was not only not averse but approved. We
may presume confidently that there had been more or less con
ference between them and other local leaders as to the nature
of the danger threatening from the Germans.

— 49

IX.
The various letters from the Republican leaders present
sundry interesting and some very instructive phases. They
vary widely in the art of their expression, in the tactics of the
writers, in the degrees of prudence and in the vehemence dis
played in discussing the various phases of the matter in issue.
The art of Mr. Lincoln's letter to Dr. Canisius, its political
significance and its superior efficiency can only be appreciated
by close comparison.
The kindest, the mildest letter, in some respects the most
considerate of the sensibilities of opponents is that of Con
gressman Lovejoy's. He is concise and unequivocal. He con
fines himself entirely to dissent from the principle of the act
but refrains from harsh criticism of those responsible for the
"Two Year" Amendment. There is a grace and charity that
seems remote from the hurly-burly and clash of politics. It
suggests the idealist and philanthropist, the philosopher and the
preacher, rather than the keen, poised politician, alert to con
serve his forces and counterbalance against reaction.
Congressmen Farnsworth and Washburne indulge in strong
language. Mr. Farnsworth brands the act of Massachusetts
as "odious," pronounces it "insulting and unjust" and "pro
tests" against any one charging the Republicans with respon
sibility therefor. Congressman Washburne is much more ve
hement and sweeping in his observations. He asserts his "ab
horrence of the action of those Republicans of Massachusetts."
He refers to it as "this last and meanest act;" as a recurrence
of "Intolerant Know-Nothingism ;" and he proclaims that the
Republicans of Massachusetts who supported the Amendment
had "placed themselves beyond the pale of sympathy" of Re
publicans elsewhere who "universally condemn their action."
Such characterization no doubt effectively expressed the
feelings and the sentiments of the Congressmen quoted and no
doubt thoroughly satisfied the utmost demands of the Ger
mans immediately in mind. But such vigor, such slashing epi
thet and vehemence of denunciation "cut both ways", as ex
perienced politicians know full well. The physical law of ac-
— .50 —

tion and reaction operates in politics. Such language would
produce resentment and recrimination among "Americans"
and sometime Know Nothings and among all those in Massa
chusetts who had given countenance and support to the Amend
ment in question. If the majorities in their respective districts
made Congressmen Farnsworth and Washburne safe and in
different to the feelings of those criticized, or of their friends
and sympathizers, they might be reckless as to consequences.
Otherwise they were imprudent and impolitic. If either Con
gressman had or might have some far-reaching plans, the reali
zation of which ultimately depended upon the good will and
concurrence of fellow Republicans in Massachusetts, New Jer
sey and other states where sentiments similar to those preva
lent in Massachuetts were not uncommon, then such harsh
and sweeping criticism and denunciation were not merely im
prudent but utter folly.
The letters of the two party field marshals, Messrs. I. N.
Arnold and N. B. Judd, were much more effective in these re
spects. They were very adroit in their comment and prudent
in their criticism. There is little or nothing in their letters
that would arouse virulent retort or produce violent resent
ment. Each one dwells upon the positive and substantial ef
forts of the Republican Party to encourage liberal legislation
in state and national government beneficial to the foreign born.
Mr. Arnold enlarges effectively upon the studied discrimination
enforced or urged by the pro-slavery leaders in Congress against
foreigners in recent or in pending legislation — ^especially in the
Homestead bills. Mr. Judd was particularly strong in the pre
sentation of his views. He emphasized the well known efforts
of the Republican party and its leaders not only to insure the
foreign born equality before the law but also to promote Ger
mans in respect of pubhc honors. Of the letters of both it may
be said that while both easily commended themselves to Ger
mans and both were lacking in harsh comment which would
provoke counteraction, both would dull and deaden the ener
gies of Americans and nativistic propagandists. Their con
tents would enhance the chances of Republican success in and
about the cities of Chicago, Peoria or Quincy, but not in the
— 51 —

counties of Logan, Madison, Mason, Morgan and Sangamon,
counties, wherein Southerners swarmed and old-line Whigs
and supporters of Fillmore predominated.
Senator Trumbull's letter is especially interesting in con
trast with those just named and with that of his great con
temporary. It is a strong letter, as we should anticipate from.
a statesman of the large calibre and staunch character of Sen
ator Trumbull. But while he delivers some vigorous thrusts
and satisfies the most captious of Germans, his letter does not
stand comparison with the other letter addressed to Dr. Cani
sius on the same date, neither in style nor in substance.
Senator Trumbull needlessly asserts his courage. His char
acter had been thoroughly tested and was well known to be
stout and staunch. He does not berate his fellow Republicans
in Massachusetts with harsh epithets that burn or scar,
but he does present his criticism of Massachusetts in
such a way as to make his fellow Republicans in that
Commonwealth sting with the implications of his char
acterization. In what possible way could he in that year
of grace have been more severe upon the electors of Massa
chusetts than by the deadly parallel he bluntly suggests between
the iniquities in Kansas under the ruthless slavocrats and the
injustice done the foreign born and naturalized citizens by the
discrimination enforced against them in the Commonwealth
whose citizens serenely assumed primacy in culture and
Christianity ; and on occasion were not averse to asserting their
superiority ? Even ardent Abolitionists of the Garrisonian per
suasion might conceivably resent such a damnatory implication.
He concedes the right of a State under our Federal scheme
to conduct its domestic policy as its electors may deem appro
priate, yet he contradicts his concession by the nature of the
criticisms he applies. A right in law implies a duty on the
part of others to respect its exercise and to submit in silence or
with grace if we disapprove.
Senator Trumbull's condemnation of the Democrats be
cause they sought to make "political capital" out of the act of
the Republicans et al. in Massachusetts must have produced a
sardonic smile when Democrats read it or heard of it. He
— 52 — ¦

counters with but little force when he shows that the Demo
crats really were as bad as the RepubHcans in this matter, and
even worse because they were doing violence to their pet
dogma of popular sovereignty when they criticized the electors
of Massachusets for enacting the "Two Year" Amendment.
The inference from this counter was again the deadly par
allel between Kansas and Massachusetts.
He seems to make a more vigorous and effective thrust
when he refers to the effort of the Democrats to deny the right
of suffrage to aliens resident in Minnesota at the time the act
for the admission of that state into the Union was on its pas
sage through Congress. Conceding the point his counter as
sertion was negative: it meant that the Republicans were as
bad as the Democrats and Germans could not count upon su
perior treatment from the Republicans. To say that the other
fellow is just as bad as we are or given to like reprehensible
tactics is public confession that our course is not creditable.
Senator Trumbull, however, shot wide of the real mark, and
for him, strangely missed the real point in issue in his refer
ence to the constitution of Minnesota. The two cases were not
coincident or parallel at all. In the case of Minnesota the
Democrats sought merely to deny the right of suffrage under
the new constitution submitted to Congress to aliens, to-wit,
foreign born not yet naturalized. Their design did not affect
naturalized citizens adversely in any manner. In Massachu
setts, on the other hand, naturalized American citizens, the
peers under our great Federal charter and laws of any and all
of the lineal descendants of the Pilgrim fathers were specifical
ly barred from equal rights and privileges in the electoral fran
chise, until they could certify an additional residence of two
years. This was a bald and open discrimination between Ameri
can citizens. A Carl Follen, a Francis Lieber, a Carl Schurz
did not have the same right in respect of the ballot and public
office in the Great Commonwealth of the Puritans that an igno
rant, stupid, vicious runaway Negro from the Dismal Swamp
enjoyed after a single year's residence. This was a blazing
contrast that loomed huge and disagreeable on the horizon and
— 53 —

explanation or palliation but aggravated the offense. Frank
disapproval alone sufficed.
Senator Trumbull wrote Dr. Canisius, as he spoke in the
arena. He had his eye fixed solely upon the great enemy of the
public welfare as he viewed the prospect, namely the Pro-Slav
ery party, and he directed his fire chiefly with that opponent im
mediately and ultimately in view. The allurement of Germans,
the prevention of their defection, the allayment of their dis
content and suspicion in order that their numbers and tre
mendous energy as one of the major corps of the Anti-Slavery
forces might be conserved and enhanced — such was the primary
consideration of Senator Trumbull. The intense feelings of
"Americans" and Nativists; the keen sensibilities of puritani
cal folk who disliked the liberal notions and jovial customs of
the foreign born ; the rancorous hate of religious fanatics and
the persistent malevolence of nativistic zealots and factionists
— these matters that count always and must always be included
carefully in the reckoning were not foremost in Senator Trum
bull's mind and they do not appear to have received any inci
dental consideration. The possibility, let alone the probabil
ity that the potency of the Germans had an equivalent correla
tive that could prove no less potent for good or ill to the great
cause he sought to promote by his letter to Dr. Canisius does not
appear to have been in contemplation. X.
The speech of Mr. Herndon, Mr. Lincoln's law partner, at
the Republican Hall, Springfield, Saturday night, May 14, is in
many respects one of the most interesting exhibits of all those
given. His speech, like the resolutions, was given extensive
publication. It appeared not only in the State Journal at the
capital and in The Press and Tribune at Chicago, but it was
printed at length iti Garrison's Liberator at Boston, April 8.
The prominence of Mr. Herndon in the meeting in the na
ture of the case suggests concert of action between himself
and his distinguished partner. In the first place it may be
doubted if any serious political movement was undertaken by
— 54 —

the Republican leaders of Springfield between 1856 and 1860
without the immediate knowledge and advice, or general ap
proval of Mr. Lincoln. The fact that Mr. Herndon's speech
was printed at all and so widely published, suggests prear-
rangement in the well known law office on the Courthouse
square. The intimacy of the partners, their general harmony
of views and Mr. Herndon's hearty desire to further the am
bitions and advancement of his associate are well known, and
any other conclusion is inconceivable.
Mr. Herndon's speech, however, was not in his best vein.
Its style is rather highflown and the reasoning sentimental ; not
nearly so strong as his pubhshed correspondence and his Life
of Lincoln demonstrate him to have been capable of when at
his best. It may not be fair to hold him accountable for what
may have been a hastily written newspaper report of his
speech, but its character and contents indicate strongly that
the printers set it up from prepared copy.
There is not a little in the speech that smacks of Garrison
ian idealism and New England transcendentalism. His phil
anthropy embraces the world and includes high and low alike.
The idealist, however, keeps his feet on the ground. He dis
plays the practicality of the wily politician and plays directly
upon the sensibilities of the Germans with the zeal of the av
erage stump speaker.
He apparently made a wide survey of the struggles of
European peoples for freedom and constitutional government
and insinuated, if he did not directly assert, that the French,
the Germans, the Greeks, the Hungarians, the Italians, were all
of the Lord's elect, all parts of one stupendous whole that
comprehends the European refugee and the hapless slave.
Much of his reasoning, however, will not stand sharp scrutiny.
This fact arouses no little curiosity as to the actual knowledge
his law partner had of the speech before it was delivered and
before its publication. For his associate in business would not
have made the errors in tactics and the slips in prudence that
stand out so clearly in Mr. Herndon's speech.
Mr. Herndon declares that whenever the act of a state
"projectingly acts upon us, reaching outside and by its swing
— 55 —

and sweep, injuriously and destructively affects us", then we
— the citizens of sister states, nearby or remote, as the case
may be — have a right to protest and, of course — if he means
anything by the term protest — ^to take adequate measures to
nullify such action. Such reasoning, when advanced by the
Southern statesmen in rejoinder to hostile legislation in North
ern states, was invariably treated with vaulting scorn by anti-
slavery spokesmen.
He follows the lead of The Press and Tribune in alleging
that the Democrats really conceived and pushed forward the
unjust amendment in Massachusetts against which the Ger
mans protest. He informed his audience and the state and
nation at large that the Democrats "could have killed it if they
had wished to do so." The letter from a correspondent in
Boston, to which he refers, was doubtless from" his long time
intimate friend, Theodore Parker.
The total vote for the Amendment in the official returns
reached only 21,119. That number was less than a third of
the vote cast for Gov. Banks in 1856, who received 69,049
votes ; and it was less than a fifth of the total vote cast for John
C. Fremont for President in 1856, whose vote was 108,020.
In other words, of the Republican electors in Massachusetts
alone, there were four times as many who stayed at home on
May 9 and either refused or neglected to vote against the
Amendment. The entire Democratic vote in Massachusetts,
either in 1856 or in 1858, did not aggregate 40,000. Mr. Hern
don was not one to permit himself to deal in gross perversions
of figures or facts, but like many another "progressive" in these
advanced days, he was more or less heedless, not to say reck
less, in assertion in the press and rush of controversy.
In some respects the most astonishing statement in Mr.
Herndon's speech is his declaration : "Once an American citi
zen, always an American citizen." Such an assertion without
qualification must have aroused violent memories in the minds
of veterans of the War of 1812, who either heard or read his
speech. It was in large part as a protest against this very
doctrine that our nation waged a two years' war with Great
Britain. Within a month four out of every five Republican
— S6 —

papers, and virtually all anti-slavery journals in the north were
to break forth in one terrific chorus of furious denunciation of
the concession by President Buchanan's venerable Secretary
of State, Lewis Cass, of this self-same doctrine here pro
claimed by Mr. Herndon, and Germans were to prove the most
vigorous and the most vehement protestants against the doc
trine which was then asserted by Austria, France, Germany
and Russia against their emigrant sons. For years southern
slaveowners and southern leaders had maintained that once a
slave, always a slave, and they insisted on applying precisely
the same principle to their fugitive chattels, no matter how long
they might reside in friendly northern states and no matter
what status might be conferred upon them by friendly legis
lation in their northern habitats. Yet their contention was
universally treated with withering scorn by Abolitionists and
anti-slavery Republicans.
Excluding the considerations here adverted to, which usual
ly are matters of little concern to any but the hypercritical who
count for little in the clash and clinch of party strife, Mr. Hern
don's speech had no little strength. His humanitarian senti
ments were generous and glowing with ardent feeling. His
Democracy comprehended all classes alien and native, black
and white, Jew and Gentile, Catholic and Protestant, high and
low. One law for all, one test of character and conduct under
the law, equality of opportunity and uniformity of treatment
under the constitution and the laws; these were ideals that
commend themselves and compel acceptance. Germans must
needs applaud.
In the light of the antecedent and collateral facts just
exhibited, let us examine the character and contents of Abra
ham Lincoln's letter to Dr. Theodore Canisius.
XI.
The most noteworthy fact about Mr. Lincoln's letter to Dr.
Canisius, it is not extravagant to say, was the mere fact that
i the letter itself was written and given out to the public. The
\ writer was not only not much given to letter writing, but on
— 57 —

principle studiously avoided committing his views on moot
matters to paper. He was an exceedingly able and alert prac
tical politician and he knew the fatalities attendant upon effu
sive epistolary declarations. He was afraid of the notable
inopportuneness or unwisdom of publication amidst the kaleid
oscopic changes of politics and the constant shifting of public
interest.^* There must have been a serious exigency that com
pelled him to put himself thus on paper as he did in his letter
of May 17 to the committee of Germans of the state capital.
The letter of Mr. Lincoln, like the one of Senator Grimes,
was a model of conciseness and lucidity, pith and point. He
expresses dissent and disapproval of the act of Massachusetts,
but he hits the nail and nothing else. He does not enmesh him
self as did so many of his confreres in a network of ugly im
plications. His language neither burns nor scars, yet it is
luminous and flashes far and wide a principle of human equal
ity that critics could not deny and those for whom it was in
tended would greet with hearty applause. He did not lay about
with cat~o-nine tails or "go after" the foolish patriots and phil
osophers of the Old Puritan Commonwealth. At the same time
he struck straight out at the act complained of by the Germans.
The letter to Dr. Canisius exhibits the surefooted lawyer,
who is scrupulously observant of principle and realizes the
depth and sweep thereof and the ground fact that a right, when
it exists, must compel respect for those exercising it, as the
correlative duty that insures the realization of the right. Thus
his frank assertion that he had no right to "scold" the people
of Massachusetts for their determination as to a matter of
internal administration. But his explicit declaration to this
effect is not inconsistent with his immediate assertion that he
was opposed to the principle and policy of the Amendment in
Massachusetts and that he would oppose its adoption in Illi
nois and in the federal jurisdiction wherever he had a legal
right of expression and action.
" See Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by M. M. Miller, Vol. IX.
Letters to Schuyler Colfax and to Geo. D. Prentice. The latter Lincoln
held for some time in his possession, uncertain as to the advisability of
forwarding. — 58 —

While there is no "protest" against the act of Massachu
setts, no denunciation and no ugly implications in Mr. Lincoln's
communication which could give just offense to his fellow Re
publicans in that state, nevertheless, his letter does plainly pro
nounce the "Two Year" Amendment unjust and to be deplored.
We cannot, in the nature of the case, exercise our just right
of public discussion whereby we may condemn and deplore
an act or policy without thereby passing an adverse judgment
upon the persons or party responsible therefor. If, as he al
leged, the spirit of our institutions "aim at the elevation of
men", his assertion that he was consequently "opposed to
whatever tends to degrade them," was a severe reflection upon
proposers of the act in question. But the sturdy sons of Mas
sachusetts could not complain of this inference, for Democracy
and free speech are not possible otherwise.
The most severe reflection upon the recent act of Massa
chusetts is strikingly suggested in Mr. Lincoln's reference to
his reputation — "notoriety", as he phrases it — "for commiser
ating the oppressed condition of the negro," which might be
expected to cause him to oppose "any project for curtailing the
existing right of white men, even though born in different
lands and speaking different languages from myself." This
bare suggestion-^or more correctly, this slight hint, so con
cise is his language — comprehends and meets the bitterest com
plaints of the protesting Germans and the most contemptuous
and damaging denunciation of the Democrats. It exalted the
central principle of all the anti-slavery forces and none of the
leaders of the Opposition in Massachusetts could take just ex
ception to the inference to be drawn therefrom.
The curious and the cynical may be asking the question
whether or not the sentiments given expression in the response
to Dr. Canisius reflected deep seated convictions or merely the
opinion of the moment compounded of dread of party defeat
and desire to placate the belligerent Germans. Mr. Lincoln was
a politician par excellence, whose weather-eye was both keen
and farseeing. His contemporaries and his biographers all tell
us, and his writings all confirm their opinion, that he was al
ways guided in matters of grave concern by basic principles
— 59 —

and not by the vagrant winds of popular prejudice and passion
or the fitful gusts of popular fancy or fury. Conclusive proof
of this assertion is afforded us in his striking letter addressed
to his boyhood friend, Joshua F. Speed of Louisville, on
August 24, 1855, towards the close of which occurs precisely
the same sentiment expressed four years later to Dr. Canisius :
"I am not a know-nothing; that is certain. How could I be?
How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes be in
favor of degrading classes of white people ?"^°
The distinguished Republican leader of Illinois was not
in deed or in thought "playing" to the German vote in 1859.
His expression on May 17 was the considerate outgiving of
conviction arrived at years before when malevolent fanati
cism was sweeping over the nation in ruthless tides, wrecking
party crafts and blasting hopes and dreams of place and power
and only those who had the stuff of true patriots and staunch
statesmen in their makeup could resist the fury of the on
slaught. Mr. Lincoln's courage and farsightedness were displayed
no less conspicuously in his answer to the inquiry of Dr. Cani
sius' cominittee, anent his attitude towards "ftision" of the
Republicans "with the other opposition elements for the can
vass of 1860." Here again we have downright expression, con
cise and unequivocal, hitting the mark only. If we lacked evi
dence of his courage, clear-headedness, large-mindedness and
far-sightedness, we have it in this portion of his reply. And
again, his frankness under the circumstances not only elicited
the applause of friends, but compelled the admiration of party
opponents and factional critics. In order to appreciate the signi
ficance of his expression we must realize somewhat of the drifts
of political discussion among the Republicans of the other Op-
'' The balance of the paragraph is not uninteresting :
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to be pretty rapid. As a
nation we began by declaring that 'All men are created free and
equal.' We now practically read it 'All men are created equal, except
negroes.' When the Knownothings get control, 'All men are created
equal, except negroes, foreigners and catholics.' When it comes to
this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no
pretense of loving liberty, — to Russia, for instance, where despotism
can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."
— 60 —

position elements in the country at large in the four months
preceding. In December 1858 Greeley's Tribune had suggested that
it would be wise for the opponents of slavery to consider the
feasibility of a working alliance and suggested that the Repub
licans nominate the candidate for Vice President and the other
Opposition elements pick the candidate for President. The
realization of this proposal seemed to give the whip hand to
the old-time Whigs and the followers of ex-President Fillmore,
chiefly know-nothings and "Americans." Discussion was drift
ing in this direction when on April 26 Greeley published a pow
erful leader on "The Presidency in 1860." After showing in
some detail the distribution of the Fremont and Fillmore votes
in 1856 and demonstrating that the opponents of the Pro-slav
ery Administration, if they would but consolidate their forces,
had a decided preponderance in the forthcoming contest. The
Tribune said:
"Of course it is plain that a substantial, practical union of
the electors who supported Fremont and Fillmore respectively,
insures a triumph in 1860, even though there should be a scal
ing off on either side, as there possibly would be. We can af
ford to lose one hundred thousand of the Opposition vote in
18S6andstillcarry the next President by a handsome majority."
The editorial then proceeds to point out that there is no ma
terial difference between the Whigs and the Americans on the
subject of slavery and then observes as to candidates : "Most
certainly we should prefer an original Republican — Governor
Seward or Governor Chase — but we shall heartily and zealous
ly support one like John Bell, Edward Bates or John M. Botts,
provided that we are assured that his influence, his patronage,
his power, if chosen President, will be used, not to extend
slavery, but to confine it to the states that see fit to uphold it."
These sentiments of Greeley's paper — all of which must
strike all to-day as preeminently sane and the very essence of
common sense in practical politics — aroused the country over
a veritable storm of protest and contemptuous comment from
the radical and irrepressible anti-slavery editors and spokes
men. They immediately suspected the suggestion to be a
— 61 —

Machiavellian proposal; at best naught else than a concession
that meant capitulation involving the abnegation of the party of
freedom, another miserable compromise with the forces of
darkness whereby principles gave way to policy and plunder.
And the stiffbacked radicals would have none of it.
Greeley's editorial produced a violent reaction among the
Germans. The German press, after the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, was by a considerable majority, radical and out
spoken in its opposition to slavery, opposed to its extension and
opposed to its very existence and not averse to summary meas
ures for its extinction. The iniquities of the institution — par
ticularly the frightful phases of the enforcement of the Fugi
tive Slave law — and some of the assertions of the Supreme
court in the case of Dred Scott reminded "Forty-eighters" of
the processes of tyranny under the oppressive rule of their
Fatherland which they fled in 1848 and later years. An alli
ance, or any formal affiliation with the conservative whigs
who resisted any interference with the rights of slaveholders
aroused them to protest. Another fact provoked their wrath
and fury.
Greeley's willingness to join with the "Americans" of the
South and the remnants of the Know-nothings in the North was
to Germans an unspeakable abomination, for their memories
were full of bitter recollections of the harsh and mean and
often brutal persecutions they endured during the heyday of
1 Know-nothingism. As Germans regarded them, Messrs. Bates,
Bell and Botts stood foremost in the country as sanctioning
narrow, proscriptive legislation and by their silence, if not by
speech, giving their countenance to the brutalities of Know-
Inothingism. Greeley's suggestion meant an unholy alliance
j with the powers of evil and hence the point blank question in
Dr Canisius' letter to Mr. Lincoln — did he favor the "fusion"
of the Republicans with the "other Opposition elements for
the canvass of 1860 ?" Needless to say, the inquiry was grand
strategy and masterly tactics — a tremendous drive at the very
centre of the war zone.
Dr. Canisius and his confreres knew that there was in
tense and widespread opposition to "fusion" among staunch
— 62 —

anti-slavery folk, and they knew too, that Mr. Lincoln was
aware of the intense feelings of the Germans in respect of
anything that smacked of Know-nothingism. With Germans
universally aroused in alarm and protest against the "Two
Year" amendment, their plump question at that juncture was
in truth a crucial test of the character and capacity of the man
addressed. And with royal certitude he promptly replied.
Mr. Lincoln did not hedge himself about with saving clauses
that would enable him to face both ways and deny or assert as
circumstances and variable attacks might make convenient. He
declared in the most direct, straightforward manner that he
was in favor of fusion with any and all elements of the Oppo
sition if the terms of the alliance could be arranged satisfac
torily. There was one central fact — an irreducible minimum —
on which all could stand, to-wit, antagonism to the extension
of slavery. Idealists and realists, liberals and conservatives,
could come together on this common ground. All can unite
easily and effectively upon a universal issue. The great objec
tive is the defeat of the party in power that favors or protects
the evil complained of, and ballots, like bullets, are impersonal.
It matters little or nothing whence they come if thereby oppon
ents are routed and driven from place and power. Those who
desired the overthrow of the Pro-slavery party should not
stickle at minor and subsidiary considerations. If such matters
were to be contemplated it would not be long before such petty
considerations as diet, clothes and family would determine
party action, and chaos would ensue.
Any dodging or juggling on the subject of slavery was
given no countenance whatever. Any color of compromise
on principle would be "as foolish as unprincipled;" and he
would not lower the Republican standard by "a hair's
breadth." But with this sine qua non assured Mr. Lincoln
was frank to the point of bluntness. He would join forces
with any party or faction, or group and he would follow the
lead of any tried and true standard bearer whose character
and guidon would inspire confidence and afford the greatest
hope of success. And he states bluntly that he would
"cheerfully support" a number of "good and patriotic men
— 63 —

of the South" if they would "place themselves on Republican
ground." In the light of then recent discussion such an as
sertion could have meant but one thing. Mr. Lincoln would
support Messrs. Bates, Banks, Bell, Botts or Cameron, should
any one of them be nominated. To give out such a statement
and right into the teeth of the militant Germans, was either a
most daring and reckless assertion of independence or it was
an act of supreme sagacity and perfect politics.
The premises of perfect politics, in the old Greek sense
of the term, are what Montesqieu would declare to be the
"necessary relations of things," or as Carlyle later was wont
to put it, "the eternal verities." The premises Abraham Lin
coln rarely failed to discern and to comprehend, and when
realized he stood squarely thereon, regardless of the dissent
or doubts or dread of shifty and timid souls about him. In
the art of politics, in the adjustment of procedure to principles
and prudence, the distinguished Republican leader of Spring
field was a past master and his ability and achievement were
never more effectively demonstrated than in his response to
the interrogatories of Dr. Canisius and confreres.
Dr. Canisius, in his letter to the editor of the Daily State
Journal, communicating Mr. Lincoln's reply of May 17, de
clared that the response "of the gallant champion of our state
is in accordance with the views of the whole German popula
tion, supporting the Republican party, and also with the views
of the entire German Republican press." This statement, of
itself, is a superb tribute to Mr. Lincoln's sagacity and
staunch character as a practical politician, who is the real
statesman in fact. It signified instant approval of his posi
tion and views when he normally might have anticipated for
a portion of his letter, disfavor, if not violent dissent.
Dr. Canisius indulged in excessive statement when he in
formed the State Journal that "the whole German popula
tion" and the "entire German Republican press" concurred
in Mr. Lincoln's views. The editor of Der Illinois Staats-
Anzeiger apparently allowed his intense satisfaction over Mr.
Lincoln's unqualified expression of disapproval of the princi
ple of the "Two Year" Amendment to induce the generous
— 64 —

conclusion that Germans were no less accordant with his views
anent "fusion", but he was seriously in error as the develop
ments of the next twelve months demonstrated. At no time
before the national Republican convention met at Chicago,
May 16, 1860, was any considerable proportion of the German
Republican press agreeable to the nomination of Bell or Bates
or Botts. The candidacy of Judge Bates had been announced
some time before and his friends were promoting it vigorously,
but the German press, generally speaking, treated it with either
contemptuous silence or with downright denunciation. This
hostile attitude steadily increased among the radical Germans
until March it lead to an organized movement that gave a
quietus to the hopes and plans of the friends of Judge Bates
at the Chicago convention. But this is another story.
The matter of importance and of chief significance, how
ever, is not the exact truth of Dr. Canisius' statement in his
letter to the State Journal that Mr. Lincoln expressed the
views of German republican editors, but the mere fact that he,
Dr. Canisius, should so assert his belief and thereby express
his great satisfaction with the reply of his fellow-townsman to
the interrogatories of his Committee. XIL
During his public career Abraham Lincoln wrote some
notable letters, justly celebrated for their felicity and force
of expression, their acumen and profundity, and marvelous
effectiveness, but it may be doubted if he ever wrote any let
ter with greater skill and effect than his letter to Dr. Theo
dore Canisius. The literary art of the letter was perfect ; di
rectness and simplicity of language; neither fine writing nor
magniloquence and no ponderous platitudes; merely lucid,
luminous assertion strictly confined to the naked issue. As
the editor of the State Journal appropriately put it: there
was not a word too much and every word was needed.
In his response Mr. Lincoln not only satisfied the militant
Germans, but he fastened them to him with hoops of steel
by his subtle reference to his well known views and course re-
— 65 —

specting slavery, as a solid reason for his opposing any pro
posal that so much as squinted towards the political degrada
tion of any class or body of white men. But he did so with
out giving just offense to those who might differ with him in
opinion and conduct. There was a nice appreciation and ob
servance of legal limits and rights of action and discussion
and a perfect grace of reference and courtesy in consideration
of the sensibilities of all directly and indirectly implicated.
But, while Mr. Lincoln satisfied the Germans completely
on the major and immediate issue with which they were con
cerned, and his character and conduct as a public man gave
them perfect confidence as to his sincerity and reliability, he
did not go precipitately into denunciation of all dissentients.
He frankly asserted his willingness to co-operate with those
who held views contrary to his own on collateral and minor
issues and he declared himself in language no man could mis
understand. He thereby cleared himself of adverse charges
and dissipated all suspicions as to himself and at the same
time extended and strengthened his own or his party's lines
and made easy the way for alliances and affiliations with im
portant contingents necessary if victory in the impending na
tional campaign was to be achieved.
In the concluding sentence of his letter Mr. Lincoln says:
"I have written this hastily." The statement is subject to
various interpretations. It may mean precisely what it says,
that he replied instantly to the interrogatories of the Com
mittee of Germans who addressed without taking days for de
liberations. Senator Grimes replied on the same day he re
ceived the letter from his fellow-townsmen of Burlington. But
if it was intended to convey that he had written on the spur
of the moment, without having given the subject much serious
consideration, we may take it with several grains of salt. He
was too familiar with the strange turns and twists of practi
cal politics to be unmindful of the dangers of hasty, ill-con
sidered expressions of opinion on moot matters, particularly
when committed to paper. Letters may prove to be as trouble
some as Banquo's ghost, appearing at every turn of the road
in the most unexpected fashion. — 66 —

For two months Mr. Lincoln had been reading or notic
ing accounts in his own state papers and in the press in the
east of the intense and widespread agitation among the
Germans produced by the proposal and adoption of the "Two
Year" Amendment in Massachusetts, and he was too alert
and able a politician not to have been pondering upon the im
port and probable consequences of the agitation. When the
Republican state central committees of Wisconsin and Iowa
put forth their protests against the Amendment, when Sena
tor Grimes' letter was published in his own home paper and
generally throughout the Republican press of the state, both
German and American, he became keenly alive to the serious
ness of the menace the agitation was to the future success
of the Republican party in the great contest rapidly approach
ing. The letter to Dr. Canisius represented the reflections of
weeks, however quickly written. When a master craftsman
pens a line, "hastily written", it does not mean heedlessly
written. Mr. Lincoln's letter was written, we must conclude, pri
marily and chiefly with the approaching national Republican
convention in contemplation. At the time he wrote the na
tional committee of the party had not decided on the place of
meeting, and he could not of course have presumed very
strongly upon the selection of Chicago as the place of meet
ing. Ardent Westerners were then concerting plans to bring
the convention west of the mountains. The party leaders of
Pittsburg, Wheeling, Cincinnati and Indianapolis were several
ly hopeful that they might secure the prize for their own city.
Chicagoans were then no doubt conscious of local ambition
and looking with covetous eyes. Was Mr. Lincoln conscious
of any stirrings of personal ambition and hopes that the de
liberations of the convention might mean much for him as
he penned the letter to Dr. Canisius ? There is not a little to
make one so conclude.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 had made Mr. Lin
coln a national figure. Immediately anti-slavery and Republi
can papers began to suggest him for consideration for the
forthcoming national convention as a suitable candidate for
— 67 —

the second and first places. Two or three illustrations may
sufiice to warrant the assertion just made. On November 24
The Marshall Coutity Ti)urs, published in east central Iowa,
told the Republicans of Illinois "to hang out their banners.
. . . They may see their gallant Old Abe in the United
States Senate and mayhap as its presiding officer." Three
days later (Nov. 27) The Eagle published at Sioux City, Iowa,
then the extreme northwest frontier town of the state, in
dealing with "speculations", considers the suggestion of The
Chicago Democrat that he be considered for the first place on
the ticket. On December 2 The Sioii.v City Register, a Demo
cratic paper, in discussing Greeley's scheme for doing away
with national conventions, named Mr. Lincoln as one of the
candidates for which Illinois would ask the electors to vote
for President. This mention of the Republican leader of
Springlield hccame more frequent during 185''. Of this fact
we may certainly presume that Mr. Lincoln was aware, for
his many friends and admirers would see to it that he was
duly informed. In the national convention of his party in
1S56 at Philadelphia he had received 110 votes for Vice Presi
dent. He would not have been an ordinary mortal if he had
not been stirred deeply by such expressions and suggestions
and such events. His most intimate friends and associates, his
closest observers, e. g., Messrs. Herndon, Trumbull and
White, tell us that he was ambitious for political preferment
and indulged in no pretentious modesty about the matter, al
though he was extraordinarily adroit in furthering his am
bition and in securing the co-operation of friends without ob
vious effort so to do. We know that various admirers were
pressing upon his attention, in the forepart of 1859, the ad
visability of actively seeking the presidential nomination. I-Iis
various letters, in reply to such, modestly discounting or deny
ing his fitness or chances, signify no substantial contradic
tion. It was not inconsistent with a keen ambition and lively
hope that Fortune might smile with favor :uul his heart's
desire might be realized.
In view of the tremendous public interest among Repub
licans and Democrats as to the probable consequences of the
— 68 —

violent agitation among the Germans over the conduct of
Massachusetts and the great national distinction of Abraham
Lincoln at the time we must conclude that in writing to Dr.
' Canisius he had not only the fate of the Republican party in
the canvass in 1860 in mind, but especially his own probable
consideration as a candidate of high potential for the greatest
honors his party could confer. Any other conclusion would
do violence to ordinary human nature as we know it. And
this conclusion coincides precisely with the subsequent course
of events, and makes clear transactions that otherwise would
be inexplicable. XIII.
Biographers of President Lincoln, and historians of the
period immediately preceding the Civil War have, with one
exception, exhibited little or no appreciation of the strategic
significance of his letter to Dr. Canisius. Several do not no
tice it at all. Several refer to it or quote portions or all of
the letter, some without comment and some with observations
upon the liberality of the writer's views, but with no indica
tion of a realization of the importance of the letter in rela
tion to contemporary and subsequent events. Dr. J. G. Hol
land, alone, so far as the present writer can discover, dis
cerned its vital significance and in his Life of President Lin
coln, clearly pointed out the fact — but only so far as it re
lated to the Germans.^" Its importance with regard to the Na
tivistic elements was not appreciated. It is not uninteresting
to note here that Dr. Holland was one of the associate editors
of the Springfield (Mass.) Republican in 1859, whose editor-
in-chief, Samuel Bowles, vigorously opposed the adoption of
the "Two Year" Amendment, and hence his appreciation of
the part the letter to Dr. Canisius played in the campaign that
ensued. Messrs. Nicolay and Hay, in their Abraham Lincoln, also
quote at length from the letter to Dr. Canisius, but unlike Dr.
Holland, saw in it apparently merely a statement of his "op
position to the waning fallacy of know-nothingism," the views
" Holland, The Life of Abraham Lincoln, p. 197.
— 69 —

therein being interesting on philosophical grounds but of mi
nor importance and in the grand aggregate of passing signifi
cance in the course of events; such at least seems to be the
clear inference from their allusion to it.^''
In the published Recollections of two distinguished Ger
mans, Messrs. Gustav Koerner and Carl Schurz, the "Two
Year" Amendment is of course referred to because both men
were prominent actors in the drama of the period, and they
dwell upon its importance, but the deep significance of the
letter to Dr. Canisius is not indicated. Gov. Koerner merely
mentions it in his Memoirs,^^ and Carl Schurz does not so
much as refer to it either in his Reminiscences or in his Abra
ham Lincoln.
Such non-interest in the letter to Dr. Canisius by two such
German notables, and contemporary actors in the drama dealt
with, may seem to warrant suspicion of the validity of the con
clusion herein insisted upon as to the strategic importance of
Mr. Lincoln's letter. The point contended for cannot be easily
established because it is a relative matter and the fact in con
templation can not be measured or weighed or estimated in
any wise save from different angles and baselines, which may
afford us views that give us correct perspectives.
Dr. Holland's judgment was expressed in 1865-66 while
his recollections of personal experiences and observations of
the actual preliminaries of Mr. Lincoln't first nomination
were still vivid. Messrs. Koerner and Schurz wrote after
nearly half a century had elapsed. They naturally enlarged
upon the matters in which they were personally immediately
interested: their own part in the drama. A petty fact, but
one that may indicate somewhat of the effect of the flight of
the years, is Mr. Schurz's assertion as to his celebrated speech
in Faneuil Hall on April 18 of that year; "Perhaps it did con
tribute," he says, "a little to the defeat of the 'Two Year'
Amendment."^" Within three weeks of the date of his speech
the "odious Amendment" was carried at the polls!
"Nicolay and Hay, Abraham Lincoln: A History, Vol. II — 181.
" Koerner Memoirs, Vol. II, p. 181.
'" Schurz, Reminiscences. Vol. II, p. 126.
— 70 —

The facts herein set out at such length, it is submitted,
fully justify the present writer's contention that the letter to
Dr. Canisius was a fact of the highest strategic importance
and was recognized as such at the time. The judgments of
historians ex post facto, like the recollections of actors long
distant from the days and scenes of events related, are as
likely as not to deal with the spectacular facts that loom large
in popular memory, rather than with the minutia that con
stitutes the mass of reality and in the large controls the course
of things. Contemporary opinion, when it can be clearly dis
cerned and assembled and displayed, is a more accurate and
substantial judgment than the solemn pronouncements of
learned "research" historians. The pithy letter of Dr. Cani
sius himself to the editor of The Daily State Journal com
municating Mr. Lincoln's reply, indicates very clearly how
highly he esteemed the letter. He was manifestly alive to the
nation-wide interest in any opinion Mr. Lincoln would express
and he was more than pleased, he was delighted, to secure
the explicit declaration from his fellow townsman. The ex
tensive circulation given the letter in the German and Ameri
can press signaHzes it, and the contemptuous reference of The
Daily Express and Herald of Dubuque, quoted at length in
the first page of this study, to "the whole brood of Republi
can leaders from Lincoln to Wentworth," and their "disclaim
ers'' strongly suggest the conclusion here urged.
The most interesting parcel of evidence as to the signifi
cance of the letter to Dr. Canisius is afforded us in a letter
written nearly two months later to Mr. Schuyler Colfax, then
one of the foremost Republican leaders of Indiana and of
Congress. It portrays vividly the troublesome perplexities
and the ticklish questions that were then harassing the prac
tical party leaders. It should further be realized that the
writer was then one of the keenest, shrewdest, most active
and farseeing practical politicians in the nation. His letter is
given entire: Springfield, 111., July 6, 1859.
Hon. Schuyler Colfax :
My Dear Sir: — I much regret not seeing you while you
were here among us. Before learning that you were to be at
— 71 —

Jacksonville on the 4th, I had given my word to he at another
place. Besides a strong desire to make your personal acquain
tance, I was anxious to speak with you on politics a little more
fully than I can well do in a letter. My main object in such
conversation would be to hedge against divisions in the Repub
lican ranks generally, and particularly for the contest of 1860.
The point of danger is the temptation in different localities to
"platform" for something which will be popular just there, but
which, nevertheless, will be a firebrand elsewhere, and espe
cially in a national convention. As instances, the movement
against foreigners in Massachusetts ; in New Hampshire, to
make obedience to the fugitive slave law punishable as a crime;
in Ohio, to repeal the fugitive slave law; and squatter sov
ereignty, in Kansas. In these things there is explosive matter
enough to blow up a dozen national conventions, if it gets into
them, and what gets very rife outside of conventions is very
likely to find its way into them. What is desirable, if possible,
is that in every local convocation of Republicans a point should
be made to avoid everything which will disturb Republicans
elsewhere. Massachusetts Republicans should have looked beyond
their noses, and then they could not have failed to see that
tilting against foreigners would ruin us in the whole Northwest.
New Hampshire and Ohio . should forbear tilting against the
fugitive slave law in such a way as to utterly overwhelm us in
Illinois with the charge of enmity to the Constitution itself.
Kansas, in her confidence that she can be saved to freedom on
"Squatter Sovereignty," ought not to forget that to prevent the
spread and nationalization of slavery is a national problem, and
must be attended to by the nation. In a word, in every locality
we should look beyond our noses ; and at least say nothing on
points where it is probable we shall disagree. I write this for
your eye only; hoping, however, if you see danger as I think
I do, you will do what you can to avert it. Could not sugges
tions be made to leading men in the State and Congressional
conventions, and so avoid, to some extent at least, these apples
of discord? Yours very trulj', A. Lincoln.
Manifestly with such clear foresight and such strong con
victions and sense of caution it must have been an urgent
belief that a serious danger threatened the Republican party
in 1860 that could have compelled Mr. Colfax's correspondent
to pen the letter to Dr. Canisius' committee on May 17. In
deed, it must have been a state of mind approximating the
"panic" contemptuously asserted by Mr. J. B. Dorr of Du
buque. Furthermore, Mr. Colfax's correspondent at Springfield
was obviously gravely concerned lest the forthcoming na
tional convention "blow up" with the heat engendered by local
— 72 —

issues and there are many reasons to suspect that he was not
immediately concerned with local interests or nearby constitu
encies. Senator Trumbull was not seriously urged for nomi
nation for either the Vice-presidency or the Presidency. Mr.
Lincoln was being urged then in various parts of the country
and he was aware of the fact. His injunction to maintain
strict secrecy as to his writing is highly suggestive that his
own possible personal fortunes were not remote considerations
in his mind. But whether he was specifically conscious of
such a possible personal interest in the ingathering of the
forces, his letter to Mr. Colfax was pre-eminently prophetic
and accurately described the actual developments in the pre
liminaries and proceedings of the Chicago convention.
XIII.
In the way of a summary, the following general assertions
seem to be warranted :
The submission of a proposed amendment to the constitu
tion of Massachusetts by the General Court of that Common
wealth denying the electoral franchise to foreign-born citizens
until they could certify a residence of two years after natural
ization aroused Germans to violent indignation and protest
throughout the nation and particularly in the states of the
Northwest in the forepart of 1859.
Republican editors and spokesmen instantly very generally
perceived that the discontent of the Germans and their threat
ened revolt from the Republican party because of the pro
posed Amendment in Massachusetts constituted a serious men
ace to their party in the approaching national presidential can
vass of 1860.
The Germans of eastern Iowa under the leadership of Dr.
George Hillgaertner and John Bittmann of Dubuque, Hans
Reimer Clausen, Theodore Guelich and Theodore Olshausen
of Davenport, seem to have been the first to have conceived
the plan and to have decided upon concerted aggressive action
to compel the Republican leaders to declare themselves openly
with respect to their attitude towards the "Two Year" Amend
ment. — 73 —

The Germans of Illinois did not awaken to the seriousness
of the act submitted in Massachusetts as soon as did the Ger
mans of Iowa. Upon its adoption on May 9, they became
aroused and determined upon aggressive measures similar to
those pursued in Iowa. Under the leadership of George
Schneider of Chicago, Theodore Pfeiffer of Peoria and Dr.
Canisius of Springfield they addressed interrogatories to all
of the responsible Republican leaders of Illinois identical, or
similar in content, with those addressed to the Congressional
delegation of Iowa. The responses given in Illinois followed
in the large the lines of the reply sent the Germans of Iowa
by the junior national Senator of Iowa, James W. Grimes.
All of the replies addressed to the Germans of Illinois
were written upon the assumption, either frankly asserted, or
by clear implication conceded, that the votes of the German
Republicans were essential to the success of the national party
in the approaching presidential canvass in 1860 and that Ger
man Republicans were among the staunchest anti-slavery forces
within the party.
Abraham Lincoln's reply to Dr. Theodore Canisius and
confreres of Springfield was the only one of all those pub
lished which exhibited an appreciation of the correlative im
portance of the Nativistic elements, especially the fanatical
and factional Americans and decadent Know-Nothings who
counted for more in the Republican party and in the Anti-
slavery forces than they did in the Democratic party.
The two facts just named — the importance of the German
vote and the equal importance of the Nativistic votes — consti
tuted the grand strategic facts that determined the course of
events. Mr. Lincoln clearly discerned them and future de
velopments demonstrated his superior foresight and preemi
nent prudence. These two major facts compelled the compro
mise in the national convention which resulted in a denuncia
tion of the "Two Year" Amendment in the national platform
adopted at Chicago and in the nomination of the man who sent
one of the rephes to Dr. Canisius. The array of facts which
justifies this assertion the present writer hopes sometime to
display. — 74 —

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08725 9355

.fr,i.

-<. '"

* 'J - , fw -'- ¦/ ^ ;' ' . > 'J- I /, .-A'*'-^*¦

, .-- .' . r-, --''',, ,-^- '' ; -^¦^Jl^'##*'f^•'l»>,^-^^,-