indiana magazine of history

INDIANA MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

~~ ~~

VOLUME XXVII SEPTEMBER, 1931 NUMBER 3

Richard W. Thompson : a Political Conservative in the Fifties

BY CHARLES ROLL

Richard W. Thompson was born in Culpepper County in the heart of the Virginia Piedmont on June 9, 1809. He grew up amid unusual surroundings, coming under the direct influence of men of the Revolutionary period. It was his good fortune to see Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, whose homes were not distant from Culpepper. He was present at the inauguration of Andrew Jackson in 1829. His father and many of his relatives were slave owners, but young Thompson saw none of the harsher aspects of slavery. The system was to a large extent a patriarchal one in the Vir- ginia of that period. This may account in part for his conservatism on the subject in later life.

Like hundreds of other young Virginians of the time his thoughts began to turn toward the great West. In 1831 he set out on horseback through the wilderness for the country beyond the mountains. For a short time he clerked in a store in Louisville from whence he removed to Bedford, In- diana. Here he presided over the Lawrence County Seminary for a term and was then employed in a store. Into his hands fell some law books which he diligently read. Charles Dewey, one of the most prominent lawyers of southern Indiana of that day, was attracted to the young man and loaned him more books. He was soon admitted to the Bedford bar. In 1834 he was elected to the lower house of the General As- sembly as a Whig, a party name just coming into use. Here he served two terms and in 1836 was elected to the state senate, where he was chosen president pro tern. In the state

184 Indiana Magazine of History

legislature he became an ardent champion of internal im- provements.

Thompson was one of the original Harrison men in Indi- ana, and served as one of the galaxy of Whig orators in the famous “log cabin and hard cider” campaign of 1840. The reputation that he achieved in this contest led to his election to Congress from the second congressional district in 1841.

As a member of the twenty-seventh Congress, Thompson joined with the Whig majority in the war against Tyler. He was one of the signers of the “Manifesto.” He followed the leadership of Henry Clay, supporting the bank bills, dis- tribution, and a protective tariff. He likewise worked ear- nestly for an appropriation to complete the Cumberland Road. The heated controversy over slavery and the lack of interest manifested in matters of real importance to the country were strongly condemned by Thompson. He was not a candidate for reelection. In 1843 he removed from Bedford to the growing town of Terre Haute, where he soon became one of the leading lawyers. In 1844 he served again as one of the Whig presidential electors. Three years later, he was chosen a member of the national Hohe of Representatives from the seventh district, defeating Joseph A. Wright.

As a member of the thirtieth Congress, he formed a close friendship with Lincoln, the lone Whig representative from Illinois. He joined the Whig attack upon the Mexican War, claiming that Polk had forced the war upon the country in an unconstitutional manner. At the same time, he became one of the outstanding opponents among northern Whigs of anti-slavery agitation. He voted against the prohibition of slavery as well as the prohibition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. In 1848 he favored the nomination of Henry Clay for president. However, following the nomination of Zachary Taylor, he supported him. Tlie speech of Colonel Thompson which was received with greatest enthu- siasm during the campaign was delivered at a ratification meeting in Monument Square, Baltimore, for which the citizens of that city presented him with a silver goblet.

Thompson early became one of the supporters of a railroad to the Pacific. He joined forces in Indiana with the for- ward looking men in behalf of the movement for free public schools. His retirement from Congress in 1849 marked

Roll: Richard W. T h o m p s o n 185

in no degree any slackening of interest upon his part in the political issues of the day. He found himself in general agree- ment with Presidect Taylor’s views on the slavery question. The President recommended that Congress await the action of California and New Mexico in forming state governments for themselves. “We should abstain,” Taylor declared, “from the introduction of these exciting topics of a sectional character.”l

Thompson wrote a series of articles for the National In- tel l igencer, one of the leading Whig newspapers of the country which was published in Washington, in support of Tay- lor’s position. The articles appeared in February, 1850, after Clay’s Compromise Measures had been introduced, and were signed “Americus.” The contributions were represent- ed by the editors as coming from a source so much entitled to respect that they felt bound to make room for them in their columns.

The writer began by declaring that the debate in Con- gress had awakened in his mind “a most painful anxiety” for the safety of the Union. Every man was justified in saying what he could to quiet the tempest into which the public mind had been lashed. He hoped to be able to con- tribute something “to that quiet and respose” which the country so much needed. He was prompted only, he said, by a national spirit and by a fixed attachment to every part of the Union. He had examined Clay’s proposals and had heard his speech in Congress. While commending Clay’s mighty effort to preserve and perpetuate the Union and to arouse the spirit of compromise in both sections, he did not consider them as the most practicable method of adjusting the difficulties. He considered the Texas boundary question a judicial one which belonged to the Supreme Court. It was not the time to bring up the question of slavery or the slave trade in the District of Columbia, nor the question of a fugitive slave law. He did not think it necessary to provide a territorial government for New Mexico a t once, as this would only operate to widen the breach. He would admit California with her constitution as communicated to Congress by the Presi- dent. As to New Mexico and Deseret (Utah), he would adppt a policy of “hands off”-and await action upon their part.

* First annual message of President Zachary Taylor. December 4, 1849.


He would admit them into the Union as soon as they should acquire the necessary population and adopt a constitution. He believed that the people of a territory should have the right t o form a constitution prohibiting or recognizing slavery as they pleased. The North held one view relative to the question of slavery in the territories, the South held another. He would have Congress leave the question alone.

“Americus” [Thompson] spoke as “a son of the South,” as one who first saw the light beneath her mild sky, the bones of whose fathers slept under her sod, and who loved her with a devotion which neither age, nor time, nor absence, nor circumstances could abate. Continuing, he declared : “Un- der the influence of all these emotions which crowd upon me I solemnly aver that I would not counsel her to a deed that would sully that fame, or tarnish that honor. When I speak of the fame and honor of the South, I speak of i t as blended with the fame and honor of the North.”

Concerning the Abolitionists, Thompson could not speak too bitterly, They were referred to as having “assailed with a reckless malignity of heart the integrity of the Union. They have kept the caulron of their passions boiling over by their treasonable design beneath the pretense of humanity and philanthropy. . . . They have borne about with them the torch of the incendiary, with which they would fire the Capitol from its basement to its dome. They would light up the fires of civil discord all over the land and exult in the work of their desolation.”

The great body of the people in the North were conservative. They were as true to the impulses of a lofty patriotism as the people of the South. They would trust the South if the South would trust them. The great majority of the people of the country he believed, were willing to stand on the ground of compromise. Their patriotism was not bounded by geographical divisions nor circum- scribed by state lines.

President Taylor’s course was defended. “He has stood,” declared the writer, “like a faithful sentinel upon the watch towers guarding the rights of both the North and the South and [is] determined to stand by the Union at all hazards.”2

On July 5, 1850, Thompson addressed a letter to the two Senators from Indiana, both Democrats, James Whitcomb

They loved the Union.

a National Zntellimnoer, February 18. 20, 26, 1850.

Roll: Richard W. Thompson 187

and Jesse D. Bright, approving of their support of Clay’s Compromise proposals. He still preferred Taylor’s plan but thought there was little chance of its being adopted. “Under this state of things,” he wrote, “I should consider it my duty to support any other proposition that would be likely to restore peace, harmony, and quiet to the country. I would therefore vote without hesitation for the bill reported by Mr. Clay from the select committee of thirteen. I would vote for it as a peace offering upon the altar of the Union and with a conviction that it would restore concord to the country while it would furnish to neither the North nor South any ground for exaltation.” He then entered into a lengthy defense of the Fugitive Slave Bill.

Following the adoption of the Compromise proposals of 1850, Thompson upheld them. The main features of the Com- promise he regarded as being based upon the general principles avowed by General Taylor.

Colonel Thompson attended the Whig convention at Bal- timore in 1852 though not as a delegate. The balloting at this convention for a candidate for president was prolonged. Becoming alarmed over the strong sectional feeling manifested and fearing the break-up of the convention without nominating anyone, Thompson addressed a communication to the Indiana delegates who had been voting as a unit for Scott, advising them to cast the vote of the state for Fillmore. This action he believed would settle the controversy at once. It would be an example of conciliation. It would be very ap- propriate because the Whig party in Indiana was conservative, had full confidence in Fillmore, and approved of his

Thompson’s views concerning the Whig nomination were shared by many conservative Whigs. Fillmore was the logical candidate. Webster was willing to withdraw in his favor. Clay declared from his death bed, “Fillmore by all means.” Either Fillmore or Webster could have been nominated had their supporters been able to unite on one or the other candidate. Southern Whigs agreed at a conference to go over to Webster providing sufficient northern votes could be pledged to the Massachusetts leader to give him the nomination. These votes could not be secured and on the fifty-third

SRichard W. Thompson to the Indiana delegates to the Whig Convention at Balti- more, June 18, 1862. Thompson ms8.


ballot, after a platform had been agreed upon endorsing the compromise measures, enough Southern Whigs went over to Scott to give him the nomination.

Thompson was again named by the Indiana Whig Con- vention of 1852 as one of the presidential e l ec t~ r s .~ He par- ticipated actively in the campaign, speaking for Scott at Bal- timore (where he had received his great ovation four years before) and other places in the east. Early in October he delivered a three hour address in Terre Haute. He subscribed to the doctrine of “finality” and assured his audience of the Whig candidate’s sympathy with the compromise measurese6

Many Southern Whigs, however, feared Scott’s loyalty to the compromise measures. They believed him to be under the influence of northern anti-slavery Whigs, such as Seward. “He is the favorite candidate of the Free-Soil wing of the Whig Party,” wrote Alexander H. Stephens, “and as such, in my judgment, he is not entitled to the support of any Southern man who looks to the protection of the rights of the South and the Union of the states.”6

The Whigs were disastrously defeated in the election. Scott lost all of the states of the Old Northwest. He carried, in fact, but four states in the Union. This proved to be the last battle waged by the Whig Party under that name. When, two years later, as a result of the Kansas struggle, the Re- publican Party was born, the great mass of the Whigs in the north went into that party. Thompson’s conservatism led him to hold aloof from this new party in its early years. He was an “old line Whig” who found it difficult to affiliate with any sectional party.

Many Whigs sought refuge in the American Party, com- monly known as the “Know-Nothing” Party. This party was quite generally regarded as the successor of the Whig Party. In affiliating with it the old Whigs certainly surrendered none of their principles. Some even believed that it would result in the resuscitation of the Whig Party itself.’ “The star of Whiggery must rise and its flame be rekindled,” wrote the editor of the Wabash Express.

Richard W. Thompson joined the American Party and 4 Wabash Expreas, March 3, 1862. SIbid., September 29. 1862. ‘Alexander H. Stephens to the editor of the Augusts (Georgia) Chvoniab o d

‘Arthur C. Cole, The Whig Party in t k South (Washington. 1918), pp. 320-321. S e n t i d , in American Historical Association Report, 1911, 11, p. 304.


became one of its leaders in Indiana. Among other prominent Whigs to become identified with the party were ex-president Fillmore of New York, John Bell of Tennessee, John J. Grit- tenden of Kentucky, and Willie P. Mangum of North Carolina.

The secrecy of the Know-Nothing movement and the anti- foreign, anti-Catholic activities of some of its supporters in the larger cities, have received much attention. The more significant aspects of the American Party as a conservative force in politics have been largely ignored. Yet it was this phase of the movement that appealed to men of the character of Thompson, Fillmore, Bell, and Crittenden. “I claim to be a Whig,” declared Thompson in 1855. “I started a Whig, I have always been a Whig without wavering or shadow of turning to the right or to the left. I have served that party when I had the strength to serve it, and now though as a party it may not exist, I cherish its principles with all the ardour of my nature.”8

Toward abolitionists Thompson’s opinion had not changed. He exhausted his vocabulary in denouncing them. “They snuff excitement from every breeze,” he exclaimed, “and go forth like a war horse always ready for battle, provided the rights of the negro are assailed! They can listen perfectly unmoved to the wrongs of the white man, his cries and ago- nies do not reach their ears. To his voice of supplication they are always deaf. Hundreds of thousands of their own race may be slain upon the field of inglorious war, and their un- buried and decaying bodies may turn whole plains and valleys into lazar-houses of the dead, yet no sympathetic groan es- capes from them. But if a single lash’is drawn across the back of a disobedient slave, they shrink with holy horror at the thought. . . . And these are the men with whom you and I are asked to unite in political action. For one, I will not do it. The spirit of the departed dead forbids it. The voice of my fathers crying to me from the tomb forbids it. All my past associations forbid it. My devotion to Whig principles forbids it. My devotion to the Union forbids it. The admonitions of the Father of his Country forbid it. My o m heart and conscience forbid it. And come what may I will not do it.”D

‘Speech of Thompson in Terre Haute on the “Political Asp& of the Slaverp Question,” August 11, 1866.

Ibid.


Concerning the sincerity of Thompson’s motives there can be no question. He had no selfish ends to serve. He was not a seeker for political preferment. “I care not what they call me,” he declared, “SO long as I have the approval of my own conscience and feel that I am right. As for their offices, I despise them. I would not exchange the quiet of my own home here amongst you my neighbors and friends, for all the offices they can give or take away.”

The speech quoted from above was delivered in Terre Haute on August 11, 1855. It resulted in a bitter controversy between Thompson and Horace Greeley. In the columns of the New York Tribune Greeley attempted to convict Thomp- son of inconsistency. He pointed out that as a member of the thirtieth congress Thompson had supported a bill to organize the territory acquired from Mexico with slavery ex- cluded. This accusation was flatly denied by Colonel Thomp- son. He had simply voted on one occasion against a motion to lay the bill on the table and on another occasion in favor of reporting the bill to the House. He had no intention of voting for the measure on its final passage. He declared that he would have voted also for a resolution, the Gott Reso- lution, to report a bill providing €or the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia but for a preamble which he regarded as offensive to the South. But this did not mean that he would have supported a bill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia on the final vote. Members of Congress frequently voted in favor of reporting measures to which they were absolutely opposed.

The controversy proved that Thompson was perfectly able to take care of himself and that when aroused he was as apt with the pen as was Greeley in the use of scathing in- vective. He concluded his letter to Greeley as follows: “If you are resolved that I shall have no further space in the Tribune I propose that you meet me upon the stump and dis- cuss the questions at issue. . . . I will come to the city of New York and meet you there. I will let you fight upon your own dunghill. Then we will be upon equal terms where blows can be given as well as taken.”lo

Millard Fillmore was nominated for president and An- drew J. Donelson of Tennessee for vice-president by the na-

lo Thompson to Greeley, January -, 1866. Thompson mss.


tional conveniton of the American Party which met in Phila- delphia on February 22, 1856. Fillmore was touring Europe at the time. In a letter written from Paris, he accepted the nomination because of a desire to see the administration of the government restored to the original simplicity and purity which marked its early years. The new political organization had sprung up because of the tendency toward disunion. It alone, he believed, was possessed of the power to restore harmony by its own example of moderation and forbearance.ll

A remnant of the old Whig Party met in convention at Baltimore on September 17 with Edward Bates of Missouri presiding. This convention also nominated Fillmore and Donelson. Thompson was chosen as permanent chairman of the state convention of the American Party which met at Indianapolis on July 16. Resolutions were adopted endorsing the nomination of Fillmore and declaring against the agitation of the slavery question. “We desire to see an American administration by a president whose patriotism is broad enough to embrace all the great interests of the whole country,” was the pronouncement of the convention. Electors were named by the convention but no nominations for state offices were made.I2

The party, under the direction of Thompson, conducted a vigorous campaign, especially in the southern part of the state. Near the middle of July, he spoke in Terre Haute to a large audience. The platform upon which Buchanan, the Democratic candidate for president, was running, was characterized as altogether sectional. That upon which Fre- mont, the Republican candidate for president, stood, was the work of northern men alone. Both factions were day by day “weakening the bonds that bound together in one common brotherhood this union of states.” Fillmore was portrayed as “the great embodiment of the conservative national element of this country.” Rebuking the fanaticism of both North and South on the slavery question, Thompson commended the friends of Fillmore for standing upon the principles once championed by “America’s greatest statesman, the immortal Henry Clay.” This speech was four hours in length. It was

11 Millard FiZZmmore Papers, Buffalo Historical Society, Publications, Vol. 11, pp.

la Smtinel (Indianapolis), July 17, 1856. 358-360.

192 Zndiana Magazine of History

characterized as a strong, logical, constitutional argument with every point guarded by the skill of a master.13

Some idea of the exertions of Thompson in 1856 may be gained from the following letter of a citizen of Terre Haute which is quoted in part: “We are peculiarly situated here. R. W. Thompson is using extraordinary means to prevent an organization upon Fremont. . . . He maintains that the Planter has the same right to occupy the territories with his slaves that the northern farmer has with his horses. Thompson is making desperate exertions to carry his points, he does what he has seldom done before; he is on the streets and at the corners in season and out of season, trying to inveigh old Whigs into his scheme of resuscitating the Whig Party.”14

Before the campaign ended, Thompson took the place of one of the American electors who had withdrawn. Some of the Fillmore leaders of New York suggested that the electoral ticket in Indiana be withdrawn in order to give the state to Fr6mont. It was believed that this would increase the chances of throwing the election into the House of Representatives, where Fillmore would probably be chosen as a compromise candidate. This action was opposed by Thompson on the ground that it was too late to swing the vote to FrBmont. Fillmore received 22,386 votes in Indiana, while Buchanan’s plurality over Frkmont was 24,295. Fillmore’s total popular vote in the entire country amounted to 874,534. He obtained the electorial vote of only one state, Maryland. The Demo- crats were again successful in Indiana and Illinois. They lost three of the states of the Old Northwest, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, to the new Republican party. The tide which was to carry the Republicans to victory four years later had already set in.

The decline of the American Party wasurapid after the election of 1856. A state convention of the party met in Indianapolis on February 17, 1857. Thompson was present and served as chairman of the committee on resolutions. A platform was reported reaffirming the conservative position of the party on the slavery question. Early in June of the same year the national council of the Americans assembled at Louisville. Thompson attended the meeting as a delegate

Is Wabash Ezpress, July 18, 1868. I’ J. 0. Jones to Henw 5. Lane. June 26. 1866. Lane Papers (m.)

Roll: Richard W . Thompson 193

from Indiana and played a prominent part in its delibera- tions. During the succeeding two years Thompson and other American leaders in Indiana devoted their energies to keep- ing alive the principles advocated by the party endeavoring to secure their acceptance by other parties, more especially by the Republican Party.l6

Party names meant little to Thompson during this period of his life. It was principles that really counted with him. He would “unite with any set of men or party,” he declared in a speech at Greencastle in September, 1857, “by whatever name, who would strive to bring back the government to the good old way that would relieve it from its present downward and deplorable condition and administer it in such a way to secure the constitutional rights of all sections.”la

Early in 1858, Colonel Thompson took occasion to restate his own views and those of the American Party on the all- absorbing question of the hour, slavery. His article appeared in the Daily Union of Terre Haute and was reprinted in other newspapers. He was looking for a party which would consider itself as having a higher mission than to excite hatred between the North and the South and would invoke the spirit of concord, harmony, and good neighborliness in all inter- course between the two sections. “We shall let slavery alone ourselves,” he declared, “and persuade others to do so still. We shall leave the states where slavery exists to do with it just as they please, and to enjoy all the rights given by the Con- stitution. We shall leave the people of a territory to form their own institutions and to have slavery or not as they please when they make a constitution for admission into the Union.” He was not in favor of popular sovereignty as championed by Douglas, who maintained the right of the territorial legislatures either to establish o r exclude slavery. This meant continual agitation and he was opposed to it. “We shall refuse to interfere with slavery in the District of Co- lumbia,” he added. “We shall insist upon the faithful exe- cution of the Fugitive Slave Laws. Thus it will be our policy to take the question altogether out of Congress and out of political contests-in other words to let i t alone.”“

IsC. F. Brand “The History of the Know Nothing Party in Indiana,” in Zndiam Magazine of History, XVIII, pp. 286, 287, 294-302.

‘OSpeech at Greencastle, The Daib Union, September 25, 1857. l7 Sentinel (Indianapolis) April 29, 1858.


Thompson’s name, together with that of Henry S. Lane, was suggested as a joint candidate of Republicans, Ameri- cans, and Anti-Lecompton Democrats for the United States Senate in 1858. The two Democratic Senators, Jesse D. Bright and Graham N. Fitch, chosen by the preceding legislature, were regarded by the opposition as having been un- constitutionally elected. Concerning Thompson and the sen- atorship Lane wrote: “I have no doubt that Col. Thompson would be very acceptable to the Americans and Anti-Lecomp- ton Democrats, but as to thehepublicans I could not now say, having had no consultation with any of them on this subject. . . . I have always regarded Col. Thompson as a gentleman of very fine talents, the most captivating manners, and great amiability of character; and I should consider his election to one of the senatorships as eminently proper. . . . We have always been friendly and if I am to be one of the senators and our friends so determine, it would give me great pleasure to have Col. Thompson for a colleague. . . . I should rejoice to see our platform so constructed as to embrace all the old Whigs if it can be done without any sacri- fice of principle, and I have no doubt it can be.”18 Lane and William M. McCarty, the latter an Anti-Lecompton Democrat, were elected United States Senators by the Indiana Legisla- ture, but the Senate finally decided the contest in favor of Bright and Fitch.

The attempt to organize a strong conservative, nation- wide party opposed to the agitation of the slavery question was rendered more difficult by the events of Buchanan’s administration. The Dred Scott decision, the Lecompton struggle, John Brown’s raid, and other exciting incidents served only to increase the sectional strife. The American Party itself was disrupted by the slavery issue. Many of its members in the north found their way into the Republican Party before 1860. Some of the more conservative members of the party made one more effort to form a conservative party. The new party was given the name of the Constitutional Union Party.

The initiative in the formation of this party was taken in Washington near the close of the year 1859. Senator John J. Crittenden was the leader. Crittenden was well qualified for the task. A native of the border state of Kentucky, a con-

‘8Heni-y s. Lane t o W. K. Edwards, November 2, 1858. Lane Papers.


servative by nature, he was actuated by a sincere love for the Union. He was not a seeker after office. As United States Senator from Kentucky, he had opposed the repeal of the Missouri compromise, believing that i t would be productive of serious agitations and disturbances. He had likewise opposed the Lecompton Constitution. He was against all agitation of the slavery question. “I am a true son of the South,” he declared in 1859, “may prosperity fill all her borders and sun- shine rest upon her head-but for all this I do not love the Union less. I claim this whole country as my country. For the preservation of that Union, which makes it so, I am ready to devote my life.”lQ

A meeting of fifty men was held in Washington on Decem- ber 19, 1895, to take counsel on the state of political affairs. Senator Crittenden presided. A committee of seven was appointed to confer with the Central Committee of Whigs and .Americans.2o A few days later the National Central Com- mittee of Americans convened in Philadelphia and appointed a committee to confer with the one appointed at the Wash- ington meeting. At a subsequent meeting of these commit- tees in Washington it was decided that steps be taken to organize a Constitutional Union Party. A Central Executive Committee was appointed to take charge of the work of organization and to prepare an address to the people. Richard W. Thompson was named as one of the members of this committee. An address was prepared and issued on February 22, 1860, signed by thirty men including John J. Crittenden, chairman, W. C. Rives of Virginia, Washington Hunt of New York, W. A. Graham of North Carolina, and Richard W. Thompson of Indiana.

The address was directed to various elements: the old Whig strength, large numbers of the old Democratic Party, the American Party, those quiet unobtrusive citizens who always shunned turmoil, and those people who desired to unite with the only party which held out to the country a prospect of repose. The object of the party was “to remove the subject of slavery from the arena of party politics and to leave it to the independent control of the states in which it exists and to the unbiased action of the judiciary.” A national con-

Mrs. Champman Coleman, The Llfe of John J . Crittenden (Philadelphia, 1873),

NationaE Zntelligtmcer, December 22. 1859. 11, PP. 61, 62, 120, 146.


vention was recommended to be held at Baltimore for the pur- pose of nominating a candidate for the presidency.21

Here was a movement to organize another nation-wide conservative party, a party which frowned upon every form of sectionalism and had regard for the rights and interests of every portion of the Union. The numerous letters received by Senator Crittenden from all parts of the country indicate that the party made a wide appeal.22

Thompson believed that if the party should hold its national convention before the meeting of the Republican convention at Chicago and nominate Crittenden, Bates, Bell, or some other such man, that the Republicans might be forced to accept the same candidate or take the responsibility of contributing to Democratic success.2s

While he was in Washington attending the meeting of the Central Executive Committee, Thompson wrote to A. H. Davidson, who had been state chairman of the executive committee of the American Party in Indiana, urging that immedi- ate steps be taken to call together a convention in the state to appoint delegates to the national c o n v e n t i ~ n . ~ ~ In harmony with suggestion, Davidson called a meeting of the general committee of the Constitutional Union Party to be held at Indianapolis on April 12, 1860. This meeting named Thomp- son as one of the delegates to the national convention of the party.

The national convention of the Constitutional Union Party assembled at Baltimore on May 9, 1860, the week previous to the meeting of the Republican convention in Chicago. The Democratic convention had already met at Charleston and had adjourned under distressing circumstances. The party was hopelessly divided and had found it impossible to agree upon a platform or a candidate.

The Constitutional Union Convention met in the old First Presbyterian Church which had been recently purchased by the National Government for a Federal building site. A full length portrait of Washington hung on the wall behind the president’s chair. The galleries were festooned with red, white and blue bunting. The attendance was larger than was

slZbid., February 25, 1860. sa Crittenden Correspondence, December, 1869, to May, 1860 (mss.).

94Thompson to A. H. Davidson. February 20, 1860. Thompson to [correspondent unknown], January 24, 1860. Thompson mss.


expected. Delegates were present from every state in the Union. The hotels were full and the narrow Baltimore streets were scarcely able to contain the crowds. “Everybody is eminently respectable, intensely virtuous, devotedly patriotic, and fully resolved to save the country,” wrote Murat Halstead. “There are many distinguished men on the floor but they are mostly venerable men who have come down to us from a former generation of politicians.”26

The convention was called to order by Senator Crittenden, chairman of the executive committee of the party. Richard W. Thompson was named as one of the vice-presidents of the convention. Washington Hunt, former governor of New York, was chosen permanent chairman.

A bit of humor was injected into the proceedings by a Mr. Coombs of Kentucky who proposed three platforms. The first one was for the “harmonious Democracy” which had lately agreed together beautifully at Charleston. For this platform he suggested the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions followed by two planks, one in favor of excluding slavery from the territories, and the other in favor of forcing i t in, both to be adopted unanimously by the convention. The second platform was for the “irrepressible conflict gentlemen” about to as- semble at Chicago. For them he suggested the blue laws of Connecticut with two slight modifications, the first in reference to the right of a man to kiss his wife on Sunday and the second in reference to burning witches. For the Constitution- al Union Convention now in session he proposed a platform declaring in favor of “the constitution as it is and the Union under i t now and forever.”26

Great unanimity prevailed throughout the proceedings of the convention. A brief declaration of principles was adopted favoring “the Constitution of the country, the union of the states, and the enforcement of the laws.” Ten persons received votes for the nomination for president on the first ballot. The five highest on the list in the order named were John Bell of Tennessee, Samuel Houston of Texas, John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, Edward Everett of Massachusetts, and John Mc- Lean of Ohio. The thirteen votes of Indiana were given to McLean on this ballot. Bell was nominated on the second bal-

Murat Halstead, A History of National Political Conventions of 1860 (Columbus, 1860), PP. 106. 112.

*Ibid. , p. 108.


lot. He had served as speaker of the national House of Rep- resentatives, as Secretary of War under President Harrison and during the first part of Tyler’s administration, and as United States Senator from Tennessee. During his twelve years in the Senate he had exhibited great courage, putting principles above political expendiency. He had opposed the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and voted against the Lecompton Constitution for which he was subjected to wide- spread criticism in his own state.*’ €?el1 and Crittenden were the last of the Southern Whigs in Congress.28

The name of Edward Everett of Massachusetts was placed before the convention for vice-president. Richard W. Thomp- son moved that the nomination be made unanimous and the motion was carried.28 Everett was a scholar and orator of great prominence. He had served in turn as professor of Greek Literature at Harvard and editor of the N o r t h Ameri- can Review, member of the House of Representatives, Gover- nor of Massachusetts, Minister to Great Britain, President of Harvard, Secretary of State, and United States Senator. A sense of public duty and the earnest appeals of his friends led him to accept the nomination for vice-president which he did not desire.80

The National Intelligencer found nothing in the proclama- tion made by the Constitutional Union Party to which Whigs could not yield hearty and entire concurrence. The paper argued that the ends proposed by the Republican Party had already been attained. The Missouri Compromise line had virtually been restored. It had been achieved by means against which the Republicans had protested. The things for which the old parties contended had become mere political abstractions. It was useless to struggle for ends that had already been attained and to oppose things which could not be helped. The highest need of the country was domestic peace and this was what the Constitutional Union Party sought to give.81

The action of the national Republican convention was more moderate than had been anticipated. The platform, as one

YJ John W. Caldwell, “John Bell of Tennessee.” in American Historical Review, IV,

* Wabosh Express, May 18, 1880. ”Haletend, Conurntiom of 2860, p. 119. * Paul Revere Frothington, Edward Everett, Orator and Stateaman (Boston, 19261,

pp. 662-684.

pp. 400-412. Natbnal Intelligence?. Map 12. 1880.


of the members of the Constitutional Union Party expressed it, was quite a come-down from 1856-no more cant connecting slavery and polygamy as the “twin relics of barbarism.” The desire to win the old Know Nothing and conservative Whig vote in Indiana and thus assure Republican success there had been one of the main pleas of Henry S. Lane and other leaders in favor of Lincoln’s nomination at Chicago. There is no doubt that the Indiana delegates played a very important, if not a determining part, in bringing about this nomination. The hopes of these leaders were to a large extent realized. Lincoln was considered so much more acceptable than Sward that many who had refrained from affiliating with the Republican Party now went over to it. The chief problem in the state for the Constitutional Unionists was to prevent the utter disintegra- tion of their party.82

The Indiana State Convention of the Constitutional Union Party was held in Indianapolis on August 15. One hundred fifty delegates were present, most of them from the southern portion of the state. The greater number were men who were not generally known. They were referred to by the Indian- apolis Journal as “quiet estimable men.”

Colonel Thompson was one of the most prominent leaders in this convention. There was a rumor that he was about to abandon the party. This arose because he had expressed confidence in Lincoln as a conservative leader. Thompson emphatically denied that he intended to desert the party. He did request that he should not be named as an elector on the Constitutional Union ticket on account of business affairs which might take him out of the country. He was reluctantly excused from this service. No state ticket was n~minated.*~

A few days after the adjournment of the convention, Thompson delivered an address in Terre Haute on the political issues of the day which for candor and frankness probably had few equals in that epoch-making campaign. The speech, which was four hours in length, was heard with profound attention. The speaker declared that Douglas, the candidate of the Northern Democrats, and Breckinridge, the candidate of the Southern Democrats, were both sectional candidates. The convention which nominated Mr. Lincoln was largely a

**Charles Roll, “Indiana’s Part in the Nomination of Abraham Lincoln for Presi- dent in 1860,” in Idiaw Magazine of Hiatmy, XXV. pp.l-1S: W. K. Edwards to B. W. Thompson, June 4, 1860.

*Indianapolis Joumol. August 16, 1860. Thompson mas.


sectional one. The Baltimore convention which nominated John Bell had representatives from every state in the Union, being more national than either of the others. It was the only National Convention. The Republican Party contained many radicals but Mr. Lincoln he believed to be a conservative on the slavery question. Lincoln held that slavery was legal in the states where i t then existed and was entitled to protection there; that Congress had no right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia without the consent of the owners, that the people of a state when they did come to form their constitution were entitled to the right to decide whether the state should be slave or free. Thompson maintained that Lin- coln was chiefly indebted for his nomination to the conservatism of Indiana Republicans. He admitted that he was grati- fied with the success of the conservative element among the Republicans.

Referring to the convention that nominated Bell, Thomp- son said ; “I believe there were never assembled in the United States a body of men who for wisdom, calmness, disinterested- ness, and sincerity, were their superiors, unless i t was some of those early assemblies of our forefathers who were without equals.” He had favored the nomination of Justice McLean who was an old Whig, a conservative man, and one upon whom the Amreican, the Whig, and the Republican parties might have united. The convention, however, had nominated Mr. Bell, who was known to the country as “a conservative upright, and honest man, and an eminent statesman.”

“I wish,” continued Thompson, “that all the people of the North and the Union men of the South could look upon this thing as I do and see the necessity of uniting upon some man for president, who, like Mr. Bell, stands upon a platform not sectional and not ultra, and who would do his duty with an eye single to the welfare and honor of the whole nation.” He saw little prospect of this taking place. He did not believe that any candidate could command a majority of the electors unless i t should be Lincoln whose chances were increasing.

“If Mr. Lincoln is elected to the presidency,” Thompson added, “he will be entitled to the respect of every man in the United States. His strength consists of his conservatism. His own principles we conservative. I know him well. I served in Congress with him. I was upon very intimate terms with

Roll: Richard W. Thompson 20 1

him, and I know just how he felt about this question of slavery. During the time we were there, with few exceptions, we voted together always.”

Referring to the wants of the South the speaker declared: “They want the fugitive slave law executed. Mr. Lincoln says that i t shall be executed. .They want the right of the territories recognized to come into the Union as slave states. Mr. Lincoln says it shall be recognized. They want the rights of all the states preserved. Mr. Lincoln says they shall be preserved. He differs with them on the question of the Wilmot Proviso. Lincoln says it should be passed to prohibit slavery in the territories. But there cannot be any Wilmot Proviso during Lincoln’s term, if he is elected, because the Democrats will have a majority of the Senate until 1865 and they can prevent the passage of such a measure.”s4

The speech throughout was the sincere utterance of a lover of the Union. His early associations with the fathers of the Republic and with the great Whig leaders of the middle period of our history had so profoundly influenced him that he could not be otherwise. With Webster he might have said, “I speak today for the preservation of the Union.”

Though Thompson did not support Lincoln in 1860, he was not unfriendly toward hiin as the speech quoted above clearly indicates. The two men understood one another. They cor- responded during the campaign. In a letter from Lincoln dated July 10 and marked “private” reference is made to a letter received from Thompson on July 6. Then Lincoln adds: “I wish you would watch Chicago a little. They are getting up a movement for the 17th inst. I believe a line from you to John Wilson, late of the General Land Office, would fix the matter. . . . You will hear from me again.”ss A few days later Lincoln dispatched his private secretary, Nicolay, to Terre Haute to confer with Thompson. The messenger bore this letter: “This introduces my friend J. G. Nicolay. Converse as freely with him as you would with me.”s6

Thompson explained that Lincoln believed that if the Con- stitutional Union Party should disband many of the Whigs affiliated with that party would go into the Democratic Party. This might result in the loss of Indiana by Lincoln. Hence he

s4 Wabaeh Ezpras , August 22, 1860. aa Lincoln to Thompson, July 10, ,1860. Thompson mas. ”Lincoln to Thompson, July 16, 1860. Zbid.

202 Ind ium Magazine of History

thought Thompson could be of great service to him by making a vigorous Whig or Constitutional Union campaign in the

That Lincoln appreciated the course which Thompson was following is indicated by the following letter written a few days before the election :

Your very acceptable letter of the 20th sent by Express, was received only yesterday. I am indeed grateful for your generous course towards me so far; and I doubt not what you are doing, and will do, to the end of the contest is, and will be, the most judicious-

Your suggestions are all worthy of consideration, and shall receive it- The eyes of some of our best sentinels are already upon that matter of forged naturalization papers to be issued as from your court; and, i€ possible, the use of such papers will be prevented-3s

Colonel Thompson had always been friendly toward Henry S. Lane the Republican candidate for governor of Indiana in 1860, and now supported him in his campaign for the gover- norship. Early in September Lane wrote to Thompson asking for his aid. The friends of Bell and Everett in the state were being urged by various persons in Kentucky to support the Democratic state ticket at the October election in order that the state might be carried by Douglas. This was very dis- turbing to Lane, who counted upon the support of the Con- stitutional Unionists. “Now in the present position of our canvass,” wrote Lane, “if you can consistently with your sense of duty say a word in favor of our ticket in public you will in my opinion confer a very great favor on the country and a personal obligation on myself never to be f ~ r g o t t e n . ” ~ ~

On the eve of the state election in October, Thompson seized the opportunity to speak out strongly for Lane in a statement addressed “To the conservative men of Indiana.” It was written on the cars while traveling from Terre Haute to Indianapolis and published in the Indianapolis Journal. It was referred to in this paper editorially as “one of the most master- ly documents of this campaign.”

The statement was in the nature of a reply to an address emanating from certain groups in Kentucky advising conservative men in Indiana to support the Democratic ticket. They

8‘ David W. Henry, “Richard W. Thompson.” Unpublished sketch. %Lincoln to Thompson, October 28, 1860. Barrett Collection (Courtesy of Oliver R.

8°Lane to Thompson, September 3, 1860. Lane Papers. Barrett) .


had said that i t was a matter of small importance who should be chosen as governor, but Thompson thought not. “One of the great evils of the time,” he declared, “is that attention to national politics has destroyed the dignity and lessened the importance of state governments. We should be greatly better off if we looked less to the Federal government and more to the states.”

He was against giving way to disunionists in the South because of the possibility that they would break up the Union if Lincoln were elected. Thompson declared that Brecken- ridge was nominated by a convention as sectional as the one at Chicago. “Our true position,” he continued, “is midway between the extreme parties. We should repudiate sectionalism at both extremes. We are bound to frown upon every attempt at secession. . . . If our party shall prevail, I desire to see it do so by virtue of its principles and not by becoming the all of Democracy. . . . . If its principles are worth any- thing they are worth maintaining through good and evil report. I helped to nominate Mr. Bell and shall vote for him and nobody else.’’

Concerning the state situation, Thompson said: “We do gain something by Lane’s election and therefore I shall vote for him. He is an old Whig educated in the faith taught by Henry Clay. He and I have fought so many Whig battles together that I think I know all the impulses and inclinations of his mind.”

If Lincoln should be elected, he felt confident that the present status of slavery could not be changed during the next four years. There was no necessity for a Wilmot Proviso. Nobody supposed it possible for slavery to go to Pike’s Peak. “Stand our ground firmly,” he concluded, “and eschew all alliances with either party. Let either come to us without bargain or barter, and thus let the world see that the integrity of our motives and the conservatism of our principles have been vindi~ated.”‘~

In the October election in Indiana most of the old Ameri- cans followed Thompson’s advice and voted for Lane for governor. He was successful. His vote in 1860 in those counties which had cast a large vote for the Know-Kothing Party in

Indianapolis Journal, October 6, 1860.

204 Indiana Magazine of Historg

1856 was about equal to the combined vote for Freemont and Fillmore of that year.41

Thompson’s prediction concerning the outcome of the national election proved correct with reference to the Constitu- tional Union Party. The party polled 588,879 votes in the nation and carried Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The vote for Bell in Indiana amounted to only 5,306, about one fourth that received by Fillmore in 1856. The greater part of the Know-Nothing vote in Indiana apparently went to Lin- coln. The Republican Party carried Indiana as well as the other states of the Old Northwest. The more conservative men in the North who supported the Constitutional Union ticket in 1860 were now to follow into the Republican ranks. Richard W. Thompson was one of these men.

The attempt to form a strong national conservative party had failed. Yet i t was worth the effort. Of the sincerity of the leaders of the movement there can be no question. They had no selfish ends to serve. Had they succeeded the terrible war might have been averted.

With the old Union about to be broken into fragments, Thompson proposed a plan whereby a portion of it might be saved. Two days after South Carolina adopted her ordi- nance of secession, he wrote to Governor John Letcher of Virginia concerning the formation of a closer union of the central belt of states and territories extending from the Atlan- tic to the Pacific. Disclaiming any originality for the plan, Thompson declared that he had long cherished the hope that some such arrangement might be accomplished. He had been selected to lay the plan before the proper authorities.

In the event of dissolution, he believed they wou!d have no difficulty in forming a satisfactory union, leaving the extreme north to indulge in its vagaries alone, and the extreme south to develop its capacity and resources in its own way. He thought that Norfolk, Virginia, might replace New York as a commercial port. Railroads should be developed to the westward. The present and prospective system of railroads in the state already pointed to the great northwest and must soon become an important part of the immense network of roads which now reached the Kansas border and would soon be extended to the Pacific. New steamship lines should be

Brand, “Know Nothing Party in Indiana”, p. 304.


established across the Atlantic in this manner opening a direct trade with Europe. Virginia would thus become the central and controlling power in this central belt of states. As one of her sons whose love for her had never abated he would rejoice to see her assert and maintain this proud position.42

Such was the interesting proposal for a central union made up OP border slaveholding states and non-slaveholding states, with Virginia occupying a strategic position. It was too late for the success of any such plan, doubtful enough had i t been proposed earlier. Already a new nation had come into being. Railroad trunk lines which had been in the process of development for a decade now bound together the Northwest and the Northeast.

No one had tried harder than Thompson during the ten years before the Civil War to prevent the great catastrophe. But the war came. There was no hesitancy upon his part as to what course to follow. Though he loved the South and his native state of Virginia, he loved the Union more. The four years of the war were the busiest of his long life. In 1862 he was appointed by Governor Oliver P. Morton as command- ant of Camp Dick Thompson a t Terre Haute. In 1863 he was appointed by President Lincoln to the post of Provost Marshal.

The ten years following the Civil War were spent by Col- onel Thompson in the comparative quiet of his country home at Spring Hill. Here he devoted much time to reading and literary pursuits. His interest in politics remained as keen as ever. He became a familiar figure in the state and national conventions of the Republican Party. In 1868, as chairman of the committee on resolutions, he wrote the national platform of the Republican Party. In 1877 Thompson became Secretary of the Navy in the Cabinet of President Hayes, a cabinet noted for the ability of its members. The navy was at that time weak but Thompson introduced many reforms which paved the way for the development of the New Navy in later years.

In 1880 Thompson was appointed chairman of the Ameri- can Committee of the French Panama Canal Company, a position which he held until 1889. The company became involved in financial difficulties which called forth a congressional in-

“Thompson to Hon. John Letcher. December 22, 1860. Thompson mas.


vestigation. Colonel Thompson was exonerated of any con- nection with or knowledge of corruption.

The closing years of Thompson’s life were spent in retirement at his home in Terre Haute. It was aptly said of him that “He was the stately, polished, courteous, easy-going gentleman, genial, loveable, high-minded, that might stand as a type of the olden time, as he might in his appearanoe, with his well marked features, his eyes flashing, yet soft and kindly, and his crown of silver hair.” Though eighty-seven years of age he attended the Republican National Convention at St. Louis in 1896 where he served as chairman of the Indi- ana delegation and cast his ballot for William McKinley. Colonel Thompson had met all of the presidents of the United States save the first two and was personally acquainted with most of them. He died on February 9, 1900.

indiana magazine of history

Documents