The Illinois Whigs before 1846

Front matter

t i\ oc r

Vol. XII April 0. 1910 Ifo. 81

[Fi I at lecond elaaa matter December 11, 1912. at the port office at Urban*.

Preface

This study is intended to be but preliminary to a history of the Illinois Whigs, which will consider not only the origin and development, but also the decline and decay of that party. It

seemed advisable, therefore, to defer the slavery agitations of the thirties and early forties to the more complete discussion.

Occasionally the history of the Whig party, and even the political narrative itself, gives way to discussions of a purely social or economic nature. Such a procedure is the result of a conscious attempt to examine the social and economic environment of a minority party within a limited geographical area, to make accessible hitherto unpublished information on the political affiliations of hundreds of Illinois office holders, and to show some of the relations between the politics of the state and the politics of the nation.

To the comity and state officers who have opened their respective archives and rendered whatever aid they could to facilitate research, I wish at this point to express my thanks; likewise to the officials and attendants of the Chicago Historical Library, of the Indiana State Library, of the Illinois State Historical Library, of the Mercantile Library, St. Louis, and of the Library of the University of Illinois. I am particularly indebted to Professor Solon J. Buck of the Universiy of Minnesota, for advice during the early stages of investigation ; to Professor Evarts B. Greene for kind and helpful criticisms, and above all to Professor Clarence W. Alvord whose advice and oversight have made the study possible.

Chapter I. Pact

Genesis of the Illinois Whigs, [8og [934

Territorial politics ... 9

Distribution of offices, [818.... 11

Edwards and anti-Edwards factions 13

Cook vs. McLean, 1S19 13

The Missouri question [3

!. Kane 15

Cook vs. McLean. [822 15

Gubernatorial campaign and election, iSjj 16

Question of constitutional convention before the General Assembly.. 23

Convention campaign and election, 1823-1824 25

Cook vs. Bond. 1824 27

Presidential election, 1824 27

Cook casts vote of Illinois for Adams, 1825 29

Cook vs. Duncan, 1826 32

Presidential election, 1828 35

Shifting of political lines 38

Presidential election, 1832 38

Opposition to Van Buren 38

Summary 39

CHAPTER II. The Emergence of the Whig Party, 1834-1839

Composition of parties 42

9th General Assembly, 1834-36 47

Fight over United States Bank 48

White endorsed by senate 51

Expunging resolution endorsed 51

Van Buren endorsed by house 52

Harrison becomes a candidate for president 54

Presidential election of 1836, a three-cornered tight 55

10th General Assembly, 1836-38 57 nth General Assembly, 1838-40 60

Summary 61

CHAPTER III. Harrison and Tyler. 1839-1841

Beginning of Whig organization 62

Whig members of General Assembly meet 63

Proposals for Whig state convention 64

County meetings 64

First Whig state convention 65

PAGE

Whig policies 65

Nomination of Harrison 67

Political machinery 68

Lincoln's "famous plan" 69

Characteristics of the campaign 69

Issues 70

Jackson's influence 75

The "Springfield Junto" 76

General election, August, 1840 76

Presidential election, November, 1840 yy

The foreign vote 79

Field's contest for office 80

Special session of the General Assembly 82

The Bank question 83

Reform of the judiciary 85

Summary 87

CHAPTER IV. Sectionalism and State Issues, 1841-1845

Preponderance of local affairs 89

Carlin's administration weak 92

13th General Assembly,. 1842-44 93

The banks put into liquidation 94

The state debt 95

State taxes 96

Proposition for completing canal 97

The Mormons in politics 99

Attempts to impeach Judge Browne - 101

14th General Assembly, 1844-46. 104

Canal and interest legislation 107

Sectionalism intensified 107

Summary Ill

CHAPTER V. The Illinois Whigs and National Politics, 1841-1845

Political affiliations and local affairs 113

The Whigs in power _ 114

Harrison's death 115

Tyler inaugurated 115

Congressional election, 1841 117

Tyler's veto of the Bank bill 118

Breach between Tyler and the Whigs 118

Congressional election, 1843 120

"Address to the People of Illinois" 122

Whig state convention, 1843 124

Clay nominated, 1844 126

Clay vs. Polk 126

General election, August, 1844 129

Presidential election, November, 1844 130

Analysis of vote for president 130

Appendix, shewing political affiliations 132

Bibliography 151

Index 161

CHAPTER I. Genesis op the [llinois Whigs. 1809-1834

Throughout the territorial period, and even before, political

factions and cliques existed in Illinois. Local rather than national issues determined the lines of cleavage; and the location of these lines usually depended on personal adherenecs. Prior to about 1817, the bone of contention was the judiciary; one party supported, another opposed, the system as it, existed. Just before the government was changed from territorial to state, the slave question began to assume large proportions. Without any known reason the party that favored the judiciary favored the extension of slavery, and the anti-judiciary party became antiextensionist. The struggle over the admission of Missouri, and tlie subsequent contest over the proposition to legalize slavery in Illinois, served to make the line of party cleavage more distinct and to crj^stalize parties and factions. These parties and factions, with variations, persisted down to the time when the Whig party emerged in 1834. 1

Ninian Edwards, governor of Illinois Territory from 1809 to 1818, was the leader of one of the territorial factions, and lie continued until the time of his death in 1833 to be one of the prominent figures in Illinois politics. The leader of the faction opposed to Edwards was Shadrach Bond, who was the first territorial delegate in Congress from Illinois.

Edwards had two able lieutenants in Nathaniel Pope and Daniel Pope Cook, both of whom held appointive offices in the territory. Pope was the first territorial secretary, holding that position until 1816, when he was elected delegate to Congress. Cook came to the territory in 1815, became auditor of public accounts the next year, served as clerk of the territorial house of representatives from 1816 to 1818, and in the latter year was

'The study of Illinois politics from 1809 to about 1822 has been unsatisfactory. As far as the writer has been able to ascertain there is little contemporary evidence on the subject. See, however, Washburne, Edwards, no, 149, 150. 154, 159, 160; Churchill-Lippincott, (Third Paper) ;

ern Intelligencer. August 21, 1816; EdwardsviUi Spectator, December 4, 182 1 ; \V. H. Brown in Chicago American, December 22, 1840.

elevated to the judiciary. Associated with Edwards, Pope and Cook were Thomas C. Browne and Pierre Menard, two men whose abilities, although of a different order, were only a little less than those of the leaders. Both served in the territorial legislature, the latter being president of the council during its entire existence from 1812 to 1818. Among the close political friends of Bond were Elias Kent Kane, John McLean, Jesse Burgess Thomas, and Michael Jones. Kane and Thomas were territorial judges and kept up a continuous controversy with Edwards over the functions of the judiciary, 2 McLean was a political free lance, while Jones appears to have opposed Edwards on personal grounds. Of the five prominent members of the Edwards faction, Pope, Cook and Browne were natives of Kentucky, Menard of Canada, and Edwards of Maryland. 3 The nativity of the members of the other faction differed somewhat : Bond and Thomas were born in Maryland ; Kane in New York; McLean in North Carolina; and Jones in Pennsylvania. With one or two exceptions all the ten leaders were lawyers, and at least three had had college training: Kane at Yale, Edwards at Dickinson, and Pope at Transylvania.

Around Edwards were grouped his appointees, their friends, and all those who felt that adherence to him would further their own interests; opposed were disappointed office-seekers, their friends, those hostile to authority from a centralized source, and finally that frontier element which confounded liberty with license, and hence hated legal restraint. Between the political poles stood the great majority of the people. The division among this great majority was transitory, depending very much upon personal predilections and temporary issues.

^Western Intelligencer, August 21, 1816.

s To avoid being tedious, references in this work to such statements as nativity are omitted unless controverted and necessary for proof. Besides consulting the standard biographies and other works on Illinois history, members of the family have been appealed to, and on some occasions the inscriptions on grave stones have been used. Newspaper advertisements, and a consultation of circuit court records in the county archives may be depended upon for a determination of profession in many cases. Likewise in cases where there are disputes as to the spelling of proper names, the spelling found in contemporary public documents has been followed. E.g. T. C. Browne's name is usually spelled "Brown", but examination of the Eddy MSS. and court records shows that he spelled it with an "e".

11 I 0BNBSD9 Of THE Illinois wmh;s 1 1

The intensity of the political strife between the factions usually depended on the personal feelings of the leaden of one

faction toward those of the Other, and not upon vital issues; and | - ion of hostilities oftentimes merely indicated a

friendly understanding among the Leaders. At the beginning

o\' Edwards' administration as territorial governor, he and Bond

rid to have been persona] and political friends, and as early

as dune. 1813, the latter wrote to Edwards saying, *'I agree with

you that each one shall enjoy his own opinion, and rest assured that I shall act with candor and sincerity toward you." 4 Early in 1^14, Bond complained that certain people in the territory endeavoring to cause a rupture of good relationship between him and the governor." Bond's resignation from Congress itober, 1814, to accept the position of receiver of public moneys would indicate at least that Edwards' superiors at "Washington were not particularly hostile to him at that time.

During the next few years there appears to have been a lull in political activities, but in 1818 Bond announced his candidacy for territorial delegate to Congress in opposition to that of his old political rival, Nathaniel Pope. Before the end of the summer, however, Bond withdrew as a candidate for delegate, and entered the race for governor. 6 For this office he had no opposition. 7 Menard, one of four candidates, was elected lieutenant-governor. 8 It is interesting to see how the other offices were distributed ; Bond appointed Kane to be secretary of state ; the General Assembly elected Edwards and Thomas United States senators, Cook attorney general, Browne and Phillips State Supreme judges; Pope was made a federal judge, McLean was elected to Congress; while Jones was at the time in the state senate.

Thus all the leaders of the old territorial factions received office. It is too much to say in the absence of positive proof, that there was any sort of a deal whereby the offices were distributed between the old factions, but when the unanimity with which the various officers were chosen is considered, one is led

4 \Yashburne, Edzcards, ioi.

"Washburne, Edwards, no.

'Illinois Intelligencer, June ij, August 19, 1818.

'Ibid. October 7, 1818.

The candidates for lieutenant-governor were: Edward N. Cullom, Joseph Kitchell, P. Menard, and William L. Reynolds— Illinois Intelligencer, September 2, 1818.

to believe that at least a temporary truce had been declared. Such a conclusion is the more valid in the light of subsequent events. The elections were scarcely over before the struggle reopened with increased vigor.

The only real contest during the first year of statehood was for the sole seat in the lower house of Congress. The two candidates were John McLean and Daniel Pope Cook. The former was a resident of Gallatin, the latter of Randolph County. Although the results of the election were determined largely on the basis of the personal popularity of the candidates, of their recognized adherence to the old parties, and of the geographical location of their homes, the contest was characterized by the introduction of a real national issue, the influence of which must have affected the campaign. The Missouri question had by this time assumed an importance that justified its discussion from the stump. Cook took what may for convenience be called an anti-slavery attitude, in which in a general way he opposed the extension of the slavery system. 9 McLean took the opposite view, laying stress not only upon the right of the state to regulate its domestic affairs independent of the national government, but also upon the desirability and value of slaves in any community where they could be worked with profit. Cook was beaten by the slender majority of fourteen, but that campaign laid the foundation for a successful political career beginning the next year.

Scarcely less important politically was Edwards' re-election to the Senate, in 1819, and Bond's hesitancy in coming out openly for or against him. In drawing for terms of service in the United States Senate, Edwards had draw^n the shorter, which ended March 4, 1819, scarcely four months after his election. As soon as this fact became known, opposition to his re-election arose, and his enemies united upon Michael Jones, who was an adherent of the old anti-Edwards faction. Feeling that the Edwards party was the stronger, a scheme was put on foot to eliminate Edwards from the race by dividing the state into two senatorial districts so arranged that Edwards and Thomas would reside in the same district. 10 The friends of the

^Illinois Intelligencer, July 29, 1818. "I shall in this county [Pope] get a large vote, about one-half, some say more. I made a speech and excited warm opposition from slave men, but still warmer support from freemen." Cook to Edwards, August 3, 1818. Washburne, Edwards, 145.

i hi: ILLINOIS u H

senator were able to defeat the measure id the b<

Lected for a terra of ing twenty-three for -lours.- During this

si E an s remained at his post a1 Washington. II.- • believed thai Bond was supporting him, but , s al Kaskaskia watching affairs, knew better and formed his chief." The truth seems to be that Bond was influenced by his old political allies to abandon Edwards and in the rehabilitation of the territorial faction formerly sed to Edwards. Bond wavered, however, in his decision whether or not he would support Edwards, and by so doing [lowed the Leadership of the anti-Edwards party to pass into the hands of McLean, Kane, and Thomas. 14 Associated with them were William Kinney, Dr. Alexander, Willis Bargrave, Adolphus Hubbard, Robert K. McLaughlin and Michael 3, all of whom afterwards played important roles in the political history of the state. 18

Tlie congressional campaign of 1819 re-opened the slavery question and started anew the discussion of Missouri's admission into the union. As in 1818 the candidates were Cook and McLean. Since the campaign of the year before, the Missouri question had become more acute; and in Illinois the people followed with intense interest the congressional debates and newsr editorials on the admission of Missouri. They took this attitude toward the question, not because they had any particular interest in the well-being of their neighbors across the river, but rather because their sympathies for and against the admission of Missouri with or without slavery, reflected their convictions on the extension of slavery, on discrimination against negroes, and on the sovereign rights of a state. As in 1818, an took a pro-slavery position, and Cook the opposite.

'"Washburne. Edzcards, 153.

"Kane was apparently the only one of the three to remain in oppositi'-n to Edwards. McLean and Edwards seem to have come to some sort of an understanding, for in 1828 they are in confidential communication. See Washburne, Edzcards, 343. passim. In 1826, Thomas is said to have supported Cook and been friendly to Edwards. Sue Edwards: i!lc Spectator, September 15, 1826. As late as 1830 Kane and Edwards were carrying on a bitter newspaper war. See Washburne, Edwards, 400. passim.

After an exciting campaign in which the slavery question played a prominent part, Cook was elected by a substantial majority. Cook was certainly not an abolitionist as the term came to be used, nor does the result of the election show conclusively the feeling of the people on the extension of slavery ; yet in the light of the well known attitude of each candidate on the question of slavery, it may safely be assumed that of the voters who put measures before men, those opposed to slavery voted for Cook, while the conscious friends of the system supported McLean.

The intrusion of the slavery question into the congressional elections of 1818 and 1819 served to crystalize parties. Cook found in the ranks of the opposition not only a great many of the members of the anti-Edwards party, but also those who were inclined to resent any kind of interference with the so-called Black laws in the states, and the institution of slavery in both states and territories. On the other hand, his frank denunciation of "slavemen" brought to his support all classes to which slavery in any form was repungant. Thus the old territorial parties were being gradually reshaped. Cook's warm opposition to slavery alienated from him the ultra pro-slavery members of the Edwards party, while their places were taken in part by anti-slavery members of the anti-Edwards forces. Against Cook are found practically all the leaders favoring a call for a constitutional convention three years later, but the men that were to make themselves famous for their sturdy opposition to the introduction of slavery in 1822-4, had not yet entered the political lists; Birkbeck, Warren, Lippincott, and Peck were at this time wielding an effective influence against slavery, but it was from the pulpit or editorial office, not from the stump. 16

Although there is nothing to indicate any opposition to the re-election of President Monroe in 1820, there appear to have been in each of the three districts, electoral tickets representing the two parties or factions. 17 It would appear that each

lc This is illustrated by a contemporary account. "The subject of slavery was discussed in the court yards, sometimes in the pulpits, and at all gatherings of the people, as well as in the presses, and on the stump throughout the state." Reynolds, My Own Times, 229.

"Two candidates in each district receiving the largest vote were : 1st, James B. Moore— 259; William Kinney— 191. 2nd., Michael Jones — 441 ; Peter Kimmell— 90. 3rd., Adolphus F. Hubbard— 238; Charles Campbell— 47- MSS. Electign Returns (Secretary of State's Office, Springfield, Illinois.)

15] 8ENBSD9 OF THE Illinois wines L5

faction had a desire to lionor one of its members in each dislriet

by choosing him to be presidential elector, but to what extent.

the factions divided over the issue it is impossible to say.' 8 The

election resulted in the choice of two electors of the anti-Edwards party, Adolphnfl K. Bubbard and Michael .Jones, and one of the

Edwards party, dames B. .Moore.

At the preceding August election the anti-Edwards partyhad supported Kane for Congress, while Cook sought re-elec- Cook exhibited his record in Congress as a basis for his candidacy, and at the same time declared his intention to vote for the Missouri Compromise. The result of the election surprised even the most optimistic Edwards men ; Kane was badly beaten, carrying but four counties. 20

When the troublesome question of admitting Missouri into the Union had been settled, it was found, much to the chagrin of Cook's pro-slavery supporters, that he had voted against the Compromise. His political enemies planned immediately to take advantage of what seemed to them to be a very unpopular act. Accordingly, in 1822, they supported McLean in an effort to beat Cook, and incidentally to lessen the power of Senator Edwards, who was looming large in national politics. In spite of the defection of many of his pro-slavery supporters of two years before, Cook was re-elected. 21 In the meantime the opponents of the Missouri Compromise introduced into the General Assembly a resolution calling upon Edwards and Thomas to resign their seats in the United States Senate, because, as the

"In the presidential election held November 6, 1820, the electors were chosen by districts designated by the governor on September 4, 1820. See Lazes of Illinois, 1819, p. 101.

"Senator Thomas was declared to be the head of the anti-Edwards party in 1820. See Edwardsvillc Spectator, August 29, 1820. It was during this campaign that an acrimonious press dispute took place between Kane and Edwards. The former charged that the latter inspired the editorial writings of Warren. To this charge Edwards replied with denials. Warren took up the controversy and denied that Edwards owned the Edwardsville Spectator. Sec issues of the Spectator, July 25, August 29, 1820.

'"Result of election :

Cook, 3568; Kane. 2242; scattering, 7. The four counties carried by Kane were Wayne, Alexander, Crawford, Edwards. MSS. Election Returns. (Secretary of State's Office, Springfield, Illinois.)

"Ibid.

►lution stated, their vote^ "againsl th restriction of slavery in Missouri" did not represent the known opinion of the " people of the state of Illinois."-- The resolution was voted down by a small majority, but its introduction and support indicate at least that a strong element in the state was prepared to refuse to follow the leadership of men who held materially different opinions. Edwards came in for greater criticism at the hands of the anti-slavery people than did Thomas, for he was known to have supported Cook against the pro-slavery crowd, and it was naturally a great disappointment to the anti-slavery men to see him favoring slavery. 23

The continued agitation of the Missouri Question impressed the people with the growing importance of slavery as a political issue. The "friends of fredom" were repeatedly warned by Hooper Warren, editor of the Edwardsville Spectator, that plans were under way to repeal the anti-slavery clause of the state constitution. 24 A similar warning was given by the Missouri Republican. 2 * The peo'ple of northern Illinois appear to have regarded the matter much more seriously than did their neighbors in the southern counties. The former section opposed very generally the system wmerever found, while the latter did not become aroused until slavery threatened to encroach upon its bw r n limits.

i In the midst of the slavery controversy, occurred the gubernatorial campaign and election of 1822. Four candidates offered themselves for governor; they were Edward Coles of Madison

^In a written communication the following charges were made against Edwards : i. 1. Supporting Missouri Compromise.

2. Declaring in public that he approved of slavery.

3. Knowing that a majority of people of Illinois opposed > slavery.

4. Holding twenty-two negroes in Missouri.

Edwardsville Spectator, July 4, 1820.

^Warren specified his charge under four heads: (1) Kane to be brought out by the pro-slavery crowd for governor in 1822 ; (2) Hall had bought Kimmell's interest in the Shawneetown paper; (3) a newspaper favorable to slavery was to be established in Edwardsville by Mr. Street ; (4) Illinois Intelligencer had been persuaded to remain neutral. See Edwardsville Spectator, July 11, 1820.

^Issue of January 2, 1823.

17] 318 OF THE ILLINOIS WE 17

'hillips of Eland olph, James B. Moore of Modand Thomas ( '. Bro^ I Uatin. aa

It's was an outsider even in a country where preced snt

had Little influence. The very fad that he had come to Illinois

: few years before he announced himself for governor was

against him. Moreover he had come in the role of a fed< pal

he fact was not disguised that he stood forth as an opponenl

very. The saving grace of his candidacy was thai he held

nnection with cither of the old parties and hence had the

enmity of neither. Besides he was in a position to build up a

following among the newer settlers in the northern counties, who

knew little and cared less for the squabbles of the old factions.

A correspondent in speaking of his candidacy said: "lie may

not have received any pledge of support from either of tic old

parties, which have so long divided this state," while another

pointed out that such a circumstance was greatly in his favor.- 7

Although the columns of the EdwardsvUle Spectator were

thrown open to Coles and his friends, its editor, Hooper Warren,

2 *The idea has generally been accepted that Coles and Moore polled the anti-siavery vote, while Phillips and Browne were the out and out slavery candidates. Upon this belief as an hypothesis the natural conclusion has been drawn that a great majority of the people in Illinois in the year 1822 was favorable to slavery for the simple reason that Coles' and Moore's combined vote was less by some 2000 than the combined vote of Phillips and Browne. In the light of such a supposition and the large majority polled against slavery in 1824. the inference has been made that the pro-slavery strength of 1822 was more than offset by the anti-slavery immigration that came into the northern counties during those two years. It cannot be denied that the northern counties did receive a considerable anti-slavery immigration between 1822 and 1824, nor can it be reasonably doubted that Coles' vote was largely anti-slavery; the error arises in supposing that the vote for Phillips and Browne represented the pro-slavery strength. The lines dividing the anti-slavery and pro-slavery parties were cut and recut by otber party lines, many of which were too rigid to give way under the stress of the slavery agitation of 1822. On account of such conditions the issue has remained clouded, .and not until the political alignments are clearly understood can any definite determinations be made. Warren gives a good view of the situation in Edwardsvitte Spectator, February 6, 1821.

"Edwardsville Spectator, December 5, iSji.

opposed his candidacy.- 8 Here is seen the spectacle of two of the leading anti-slavery leaders out of harmony at a time when both professed to believe that the pro-slavery forces were plotting the disgrace of the state ; and in refusing to sink their differences they almost brought about the very thing they were trying to prevent.

The second candidate in point of time was Joseph Phillips, chief justice of the state supreme court. Warren attacked his candidacy with great bitterness, charged him with being the leader of the pro-slavery forces, and declared that he had made an unholy alliance with the "ministerial officers of the state." 29 The pro-slavery press called on the "Friends of Liberal Principles ' ' to support Phillips for governor. 30 In the light of public utterances of both parties there can be no reasonable doubt that Phillips was friendly to the introduction of slavery.

The third candidate was James B. Moore, who was an old soldier, having served .with the "rangers" during the War of 1812. So far as an examination of contemporary newspapers discloses he had no other platform than a desire to obtain the highest office in the state. His neighbors claimed that the next governor ought to come from Monroe County, and because of this feeling they supported his candidacy. 31

The fourth candidate to offer himself was Browne, who at the time w r as associated on the state supreme bench with Judge Phillips. Browne was a close friend of Edwards, and used Warren's paper to put his candidacy before the people. 32 It would be true to say that Browne was ambitious for office at this time as he was all through life, yet the fact that he used a paper supported by Edwards and edited by Warren as a means for getting political support is something more than a coincidence. None of the three other candidates was acceptable to Edwards and Warren, hence the bringing out of Browne by the Edwards party. With this fact established there remains to be examined the relation between Browne's candidacy and the slavery question. Just what his personal attitude was has

28 W. H. Brown in Chicago American, December 22, 1840; Edwardsville Spectator, October 30, December 4, 1821. ^Edwardsville Spectator, April 17, 1821. ^Illinois Intelligencer, July 3, 1821. zl Edwardsville Spectator, October 24, 1820. ^See Edwardsville Spectator, July 22, 1822.

19] GENESffl OF THE [LLINOIS WHIGS 19

failed to be recorded.''' Yet it would have been the heighl of

inconsistency for ^'anvn not to have attacked Browne's cnndidacy, had it been brought forward to secure the election of Phillips, as some have said,' 1 or to further the slavery interests in any way whatever. It* Warren had supported a candidate who stood for slavery, lie was either a knave or a fool; yet he was neither. Browne is known to have favored a canal from the lakes to the Mississippi, and this project was being opposed by the pro-slavery party. In taking this attitude Browne was

^'On account of Browne's candidacy being the disturbing element in this campaign, his platform is well worth preservation, and is given below. Fellow Citizens :

It is a very common thing for candidates for the suffrage of the people to make the tender of their services with an apology of having been induced thereto by the solicitation of numerous friends and acquaintances, and to gratify the wish of a large proportion of the people. I am not going to make this apology or that such preference was made with reference to my candidacy, for in most cases their choice is their own, but candor, I think, is best at all times. I am free to confess the plain honest truth that in becoming a candidate for governor that I have been influenced mainly by my own desire to fill that important position and to acquire the honorable reputation by discharging these duties with impartial fidelity and usefulness. It has, I am informed, been objected to me that I am opposed to a canal for connecting the waters of Lake Michigan and Illinois River. Nothing could be less true I assure you. A friend to internal improvements and to the most direct and easy intercommunication between the different parts of our happy nation, I consider the connect ion of the northern lakes with our own waters not only calculated to produce great political and commercial advantages, but also to piomote immigration to our own state, a hope which no true friend to it can regard with indifference. In conclusion fellow citizens I have only to remark that should I be elected (which by the kind efforts of the people I believe I will) it shall be my constant endeavor by every effort in my power to advance our agricultural, commercial and manufacturing interests; to promote education throughout the state with equal regard to the just claims of each respective community, and to protect the political, civil and just rights of all and each one of my fellow citizens with equal right impartially. — Edwardsz'ille Spectator, July 22, 1822.