Conspectus of the History of Political Parties and the Federal Government

Front matter

Entered according to Act of Congress, 1880, by Granger, Davis & Co., in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C.

Engraved and Printed by Rand, McNally & Co., Chicago.

General Index.

Prefatory

Prefatory.

There is no intelligent man in the country who has not frequently felt himself at a loss for particulars of political information which no single memory could supply, and which could be collected only by assiduous and protracted search through old files of newspapers, political documents, or congressional records. Even a correct general knowledge of political history needs a constant supplement of details of dates, succession of policies, condition of parties, cabinets, judges, conventions, platforms, popular and electoral votes, partisan aspects of Congress, revenues and expenses, and the like; and there is no repertory of such information extant. To say that it is “a long felt want” is to give a very generally misused phrase a very exact application. A single conspicuous illustration will enforce a universal individual experience. The late Vice-President Henry Wilson was a more than usually well informed politician, and what he could not readily find in his memory it would be idle to look for in another; but even he, in his “History of Slavery,” says that the ratification of the amendment of the national constitution abolishing slavery was proclaimed by President Lincoln, in December, 1865, when he had been in his grave more than half a year. Exactness of knowledge is an indispensable element of argument, and the politician and party orator, of whatever note or ability, must either prepare for a campaign by long and careful study of history through which the facts he needs are loosely diffused, or find his power cramped by inadequate or inaccurate knowledge. To him, and to all men intelligent enough to take a rational interest in the welfare of the country, a complete and thoroughly systematized scheme of political and party history must, without any exaggeration, “fill a long felt want.”

The work here presented, “An Historical Conspectus of the Political Parties and the Federal Government,” by Prof. Houghton, is the first attempt ever made in this country to construct such a repertory of political information as will furnish at a glance any important act of national administration or party changes, opinions or conduct, from the first election of Washington to the last national convention. It is confidently believed that it is as complete, exact, and perfectly methodized as such a work can be made within the compass that will enable the cost to come within the reach of all classes of citizens. Though not encyclopædic in form, it is in fact, and really presents its information in a more accessible shape than any other that could be devised.

The charts present the general course and leading events of governmental and party history in one view, much as the map of a river presents its general direction and its various windings, its tributaries, towns, islands and rapids at one view. In one, the different parties are designated by different colors, and their ascendency or depression by the position of the colored bands above or below a central line, and the duration of each condition by the length of the colored curves, while at exactly the proper distances to fit the lapse of time, are arranged the events, policies, and prominent issues in their order. In the other, the dates, duration of administration, cabinet officers, judges, etc., are presented by a different but equally ingenious arrangement. The two are the political history of the country put under the eye in a well ordered and complete array.

Combined with the charts, and supplementing their general record, are carefully arranged collections of all details that can be summarized, with all the platforms of all parties in full, time, place and date, from the earliest to the last; tables of revenues and expenses, of sources of revenue and purposes of expenditures, and of the increase and decrease of the public debt every year from 1791; condensed sketches of the leading events and acts of every administration; the houses of Congress in their party aspects, their sessions, officers, and strength of parties.

The ingenious arrangement of the work will commend itself equally by its simplicity, completeness, and comprehensiveness. Everything needed is there, and everything in its exact place, both in relation to time, party organization, and administrative history. Whenever any fact is wanted, and either its date or party connection is known, it can be instantly found, and when found it will be seen in connection with everything relating to it. If it be desired to ascertain what were the principal features of any administration, they will all be discovered concisely and clearly stated in their proper place in the general arrangement. If any prominent political event be known, but it is desired to locate its time or the administration at that time, a minute’s survey of the synoptical sketches of each administration will show it, with the events that preceded and followed it. If a politician wants to know whether an opposing party has changed ground, he will find every authorized declaration of opinions and politics ready at hand. If he desires to know the status of parties in Congress at any given time he can find it as easily as a word in a dictionary. In short, not to multiply illustrations, the work will be found to be a perfect “hand-book” of political history, as handy as a cyclopædia, and as complete within its province.

In the production of this work, we may say, in conclusion, Professor Houghton has tried, with striking success, to condense all the facts of the political history of the country, and we are confident has accomplished a work of reference, the general diffusion of which will greatly improve the popular knowledge of an indispensable portion of general history. An intelligent and close examination will find it exhaustive in detail, concise and perspicuous in statement, crowded but never confused with facts, and so admirably methodized that its references can be found with as much facility as the contents of a cyclopædia.

Professor Houghton has visited different cities, to explore great libraries for the proper records to substantiate certain facts and events, to remove doubts, and to clear up apocryphal or erroneous statements made by less careful authors; in fact, he has dug right down to the bottom facts, in order to make it an encyclopædical work of incontestable authenticity, and neither time nor toil has been permitted to interpose to prevent this consummation. Every subject of this work has received his undivided attention, closest scrutiny, and discriminating thought. He has assumed nothing, and taken nothing for granted; and his scrupulous accuracy in the compilation of this “Historical Conspectus of the Political Parties and the Federal Government” will make it an “authority amongst authorities,” and it will be accepted as such by the American Scholar, Statistician, and Statesman.

Granger, Davis & Co., Publishers.

Indianapolis, Indiana.

Descriptive

Descriptive.

The design of this work is to present the outlines of American political and governmental history, from Colonial days to the present time. For this purpose, two folding charts, a series of political and fiscal maps and plates, historical articles and tables, and party platforms are employed.

In the front and at the back of the “Conspectus” will be found the two following charts spoken of. The one in front we will call

THE POLITICAL DIAGRAM.

In this chart, the outline history of the parties is shown by colored streams, represented as flowing from the left to the right. The name of a political organization appears upon the color which designates the party. When the history of a party begins, the color begins; when its history closes, the color disappears. After each name the word party is understood. The dates at the extremities of a color mark the beginning and the close of the history of a party; for instance, the old Whig party began in 1776, and closed in 1787. That out of which a party was organized and that into which it merged are readily seen by inspection. Take, for example, the Tory party, which sprang from colonial sentiment, and, in 1783, merged into the Whig party. The origin of the Federal and Anti-Federal parties is prominently shown. The words proceeding from the stream for a party represent the issues of that party. The issue is located at the date when the party began advocating it; for instance, the Constitution in 1787 was advocated by the Federal party. In 1791, the Anti-Federal party was called the Democratic-Republican party. When a party is in power, it appears above the streams for the other parties. The Federal party was in power from the beginning of Washington’s administration till the beginning of Jefferson’s. In 1801, the Democratic-Republican party obtained control of the government. In Monroe’s administration, the Federal party, having been overborne and conquered in several Presidential campaigns, ceased to maintain itself as a separate political organization, and melted away, the major portion of its membership going into the Democratic-Republican party; then occurred the “Era of Good Feeling.”

The mysterious disappearance of William Morgan, a New York state freemason, in September, 1826, and the excitement arising therefrom, resulted, in 1827, in the formation of a political organization, known in history as the Anti-Masonic party.

In 1828, the supporters of John Quincy Adams separated themselves from the Democratic-Republican party, and styled themselves the National Republican party. The supporters of Andrew Jackson, the same year, dropped the latter part of their former party-title, and became then and afterwards known as the Democratic party.

In 1831, a schism occurred in the Democratic party, under the leadership of John C. Calhoun, the representative and champion of “states-rights” sentiment, which had its origin in South Carolina; this faction received the name of the Nullification party.

The opponents of President Jackson and his administration combined, in the year 1834, as a political organization, to which was given the name of the Whig party; the National Republican party was, naturally, the main constituent of this new organization, but it received large accessions from the Anti-Masonic and Nullification parties, and many adherents from the Democratic party itself.

In 1833, the National Anti-Slavery Society was formed; in 1839, a portion of the membership of that Society gave that organization a political form, and became distinguished as the “Garrisonians” or Abolition party. The following year (1840), a constitutional anti-slavery party, styled the Liberty party, was formed, into which most of the Abolitionists entered. With change of name, by an offshoot called the Liberty League, in 1845, and joined by the Free-Soil Democrats of New York, styled “Barnburners,” these several anti-slavery parties, in 1848, were called the Free-Soil party.

In 1848, also, the New York division of the Democratic party, which had borne the name of “Hunkers” from 1843, dropped that distinguishing title, and became as one with the old association.

The Native American party was organized in 1843, and the Silver Grays in 1850.

In 1854, a combination of Anti-Nebraska Democrats, Whigs, Americans, and Free-Soilers opposed Pierce’s administration, under the designation of “Anti-Nebraska” or the “Fusion” ticket. At this time the Republican party was organized in some of the states; it became a National party in 1856. The same year, a part of the Americans, calling themselves North Americans, joined the Republican party. This party gained the ascendency in 1860, and the following year was joined by a portion of the Constitutional Unionists, who had formed a party the preceding year out of the disbanded American party.

The Democratic party was in power from 1853 till the inauguration of Lincoln. This party was dismembered in 1860. The Breckinridge wing, of the south, entered the Confederacy; the Douglas wing supported the Union; a portion from each section joined the Republican party.

The Liberal Republicans, in 1872, united with the Democracy, and nominated Horace Greeley. This ticket was not satisfactory to a number of Democrats. These, calling themselves “Straight-Outs,” met at Louisville, Kentucky, and nominated O’Conor.

The Temperance party, organized in 1872, was called the Prohibition party in 1876.

The Labor party, originating in trade-unions, was formed in 1872.

Out of the Granger organization grew, in part, the National (Greenback) party.

The Tammany Democrats, and Independent Republicans, or “Scratchers,” of New York, are represented; and below is seen the National Liberal party, organized at Cincinnati, in September, 1879, under the lead of Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll.

Every issue that a party has advocated is presented prominently to the eye. The issues of a platform appear in groups. Take, for instance, the platform of the Free-Soil party in 1848, and note the leading thoughts therein. An issue is attached to a party only once.

Along the upper edge of the “Political Diagram” will be found the names of the Presidents from time to time at the head of the Federal government. Vertical lines, springing from year figures, divide the party history given in the Diagram into Administration epochs.

Arranged between the Administration-epoch lines, along the lower edge of this folding chart, will be found the names of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates, with the number of electoral and popular votes by them severally received; also, the political complexions of the two Houses of Congress.

At the back of this work, as has been stated, will be found an outline history of the

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

At the left is an analysis, giving its divisions and subdivisions. To the right of this is a classification of the administrations from the time of Washington to the present. The colors show the politics of each administration. But five parties have had control of the Federal government—the Federal, the Democratic-Republican, the Democratic, the Whig, and the modern Republican. The dates at the top show the beginning and close of the administrations. From these dates, vertical lines extend through the chart. The history of an administration is located between two lines. At the top of the space, included between two of these lines, is seen the name of a President, below which are Federal officers, consisting of his Cabinet, Judges of the Supreme Court, the Vice-President, and the Speaker of the House. The position which each officer occupied is shown by the analysis on the left. The time each official was in office is shown by the dates; for instance, John Marshall was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835. Below the list of government officials are given all the important congressional events that occurred during each administration.

Commencing with page 7 and ending with page 32 is a

“CONSPECTUS” OF POLITICAL HISTORY.

Here is shown, in concise and comprehensive paragraphs, arranged under Administration-headings, the history and status of each political party then in existence, with an explanation and discussion of concurrent party issues; the causes which led to their adoption; why new parties were formed or old ones revived, and why dissolved; the measures they supported and the political principles they espoused— thus furnishing a connected history of American political parties, from their rise to the present day.

The next subject-division is headed

PLATFORMS OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES.

This contains the resolutions and platforms of the political associations which have sprung up and flourished in this country, either in weakness or in strength, beginning with extracts from the celebrated and historical Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798, and ending with the party platforms of 1880. No other publication contains, in its entirety, this important political historical feature.

Next follow a series of

POLITICAL AND FISCAL MAPS AND PLATES,

Which contain a large amount of complementary information.

First, is a Political Map of the United States. If a District has a Republican representative in Congress, it is colored Red; if the representative is Democratic, the District is colored Yellow.

The next plate is a Fiscal Chart, showing the relative amount of the revenue, debt, and expenditures of the Federal government. The explanations below show what each color indicates. Bordering the diagram for Revenue are figures, giving for each year the amount of the revenue. This amount is represented to the eye by colors. Take, for example, the revenue for 1815. The revenue for that year was fifteen million seven hundred thousand dollars. Of this amount as much was from customs as the length of the yellow on the space for the year is to the full length of the space across the column. In like manner, the Expenditures are indicated to the eye. The central column shows most vividly the difference between the amount of the debt in the time of Jackson, and that which the government sustained at the close of the civil war.

The next plate gives the Politics of the States according to the politics of the Governors. This is made clear by the explanation attached below.

In like manner, another plate gives the Politics of the States according to their votes for President.

The other plates are interesting as matters of reference, et cetera.

The last map of this series shows the

ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY, AND ITS DISTRIBUTION AMONG POLITICAL DIVISIONS.

Bordering the Fiscal Chart will be found the full text of the

VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798,

An extract from which is given on page 33. And on the sides of the next following plate is printed the full text of the

KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798.

The closing printed matter of this work is a

TABLE OF GOVERNORS,

Arranged under state headings, giving the names of the gubernatorial incumbents, and the dates of their office holding.

Conspectus of Political History

.

Colonial

Colonial.

Colonial politics.—The colonists were not divided among themselves by political parties; but they advocated sentiments adverse to those of the British crown, in regard to government, trade, and taxation.

Local self-government, the colonies maintained, was secured to them by their charters, which were regarded in the light of civil compacts, not to be changed without the consent of the parties thereto. By virtue of these instruments, and the rights of Englishmen, guaranteed by the magna charta, the colonies also “claimed the exclusive supervision over all internal interests, and the sole right to levy and collect taxes.” They consented that Parliament had the reserved right to regulate commerce, but not to adjust the internal trade of the colonies.

Indirect taxation upon the colonies was attempted as soon as they were favored with prosperity. This was regarded unjust, and protests against the aggressions of Parliament were made by several legislatures. Plymouth protested in 1636, and for the next thirty years other colonies followed the example.

Navigation laws, enacted from time to time, annoyed the colonies after the year 1651. They were odious, among other reasons, because they generally required colonial exports and imports to be carried in English ships, and forced the colonies to trade with England and pay high duty on their products.

Inter-colonial duties, in 1672, upon various articles of trade, were imposed by the parent country for the first time. Manufacturing establishments soon sprang up to counteract this illiberal policy, but these were interdicted and crippled by British authority, and followed by other oppressive measures.

Direct taxation on the colonies was attempted in 1765, by means of the Stamp Act. It provided that all legal documents should be executed upon paper bearing a stamp for which the English government charged a specific price. This was resented by the colonies with indignation, protests, and alarm, and was followed by a series of aggressions upon the local self-government of the colonists, who, when civil measures had been exhausted in behalf of their cause, resorted to arms.

The War of the Revolution began in 1775, and was waged one year against the mother country for a redress of grievances; but being unable to obtain this, the colonies declared themselves free and independent.

Revolutionary

Revolutionary.

Origin of parties.—When the Revolutionary war began (1775), the questions at issue between the British ministry and the colonists gave rise, among the latter, to the Whig and the Tory party. These were the names of the two great political parties in England, but they lost in America the significance which they had in the parent country. The line of difference between the parties, for the first fifteen months of hostilities, was drawn by the terms on which the connection of the colonies with England should continue. “The Whigs wished to remain colonists on condition that their rights would be guaranteed to them;” the Tories were willing to thus remain without such guarantee. After the

Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Whigs advocated absolute separation from Great Britain, while the Tories supported the cause of the Crown. The declaration was moved in Congress, June 7th, by Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia, in these words: “Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.” A formal declaration was then prepared, and adopted on the 4th of July.

The Whig party was composed of those Americans who favored the principles for which the Revolutionary war was fought, and drew into its ranks nearly all the clergy, except those of the Episcopal faith; the major part of the lawyers; a large proportion of the physicians; and many “young men who had their fortunes to make and distinctions to win.” “Sons of Liberty” and “Liberty Men” were Whigs. Those of this party who took an active part in the struggle for independence were called Patriots. A majority of the colonists were Whigs. It is estimated that in some states they were probably in the minority, and in others they about equaled their opponents. When hostilities opened, this party began to assume control of colonial affairs, both civil and military, and throughout the war it directed the government of the states and of the nation. The Whigs fought for a cause as righteous as any that ever arrayed men in battle, and in so doing they broke the yoke of colonial vassalage and gained for the world much of that which they gained for themselves.

Continental Congress.—During the first six years of the war, the central authority of the country was the Continental Congress, composed of delegates from the states, who acted under assumed powers. The requirements of Congress were not binding upon the states unless they so willed; but unity of action was secured by patriotism and a common danger, and the “power exercised by Congress was acquiesced in by the people.” To establish a settled form of government and a permanent union, the United States, in 1781, adopted the

Articles of Confederation, by which, thirteen in number, the powers of Congress were defined. “This body was granted control over questions of war and peace; but its powers and duties were chiefly advisory and dependent for their execution upon the co-operation of the states.” The articles did not provide for an executive or a judicial department. By this defective system, Congress was left powerless in civil affairs, and the highest authority was vested in the states.

The Tory party was composed of the colonists who adhered to the Crown during the war. It was joined by nearly all royal officials, some eminent lawyers, dependents of royal landholders, numerous physicians, some who were at first conservative, or neutral, and those who, not otherwise influenced, dreading the strength of England, believed that a “successful resistance to her power was impossible.” The Tories, or Royalists, composed a considerable portion of the force employed to put down the “rebellion.” The number of them who enlisted in the military service of the Crown was probably more than twenty-five thousand. Various measures were taken by the Whig populace to awe and punish the Tories. Different ones at different times, as circumstances seemed to suggest, were “tarred and feathered,” mobbed, smoked, waylaid, insulted, deposed from office, and driven from home. Against them the legislatures of the states, according to the offense committed, passed laws inflicting such penalties as death, exile, confiscation of estate, loss of personal liberty for a limited period, disqualification from office, imprisonment, and transportation to a British possession. At the peace of 1783, these laws were in force, and no provision was made for the Royalists; they were banished by those they had opposed, and neglected by those they had aided. When the British troops were withdrawn from our shores, the Tories abandoned the United States and became the founders of New Brunswick and Upper Canada. The exiles appealed to Parliament for relief, and received, after several years of delay, fifteen and a half millions of dollars. Besides this, many of them obtained “annuities, half pay as military officers, large grants of land, and shared with other subjects in the patronage of the Crown.” The Royalists, whose injury to the cause of liberty had not been great, were permitted to remain at home. The issue on which their party was based, died with the Revolution, and in 1783 the Tory party ceased to exist.

Confederation

Confederation.

Particularists.—The Whigs of the Revolution were composed of two classes of men holding opposite views on national government. One class held to the idea that state government should be supreme; they were unwilling that a central authority should have power to coerce a state. They feared that such a government would deprive the states of their freedom, and would establish over them a sovereignty as objectionable as the one from which they were struggling to free themselves. They believed in a central government, republican in form and democratic in spirit, provided its powers were limited; but they were jealous of delegated authority, and looked with suspicious eye at every effort tending towards centralization of government. They were forced to these conclusions by their own experience and that of their forefathers, on “whose hearts the fires of persecution had burned a hatred of royalty too deep to be erased.” These partisans are designated “Particularists.”

Strong Government men.—The other class was composed of men who regarded local self-government as inadequate to meet the exigencies of the public service. They believed that a government modeled after that of England should be established over the United States, and that the governments of the states, if they could not be destroyed, should be reduced in importance. These are called “Strong Government” men. The important matters of the war prevented these conflicting views from appearing as disturbers of the public mind; but after the recognition of our independence they were freely discussed, and “were soon developed in the formation of political parties.”

The weakness of the Confederation was seen by the Strong Government men, and they determined upon a change of central authority. The condition of the country was an aid to them. National affairs were in a bad condition at the close of the war, and, under inefficient government, grew worse, till the country bordered on a state of anarchy. The states looked upon Congress as a creation of the war, and as something not necessary in time of peace. They first ignored its requisitions, then scoffed at its weakness, and finally boasted of their neglect of duty. Their want of unanimity prevented the regulation of foreign trade. Distant nations, owing to the weakness of Congress, were unwilling to bind themselves by commercial treaties with our country. The legislatures of states having ports for foreign commerce, taxed the people of other States trading through them; others taxed imports from sister states; in other instances the navigation laws treated the people of other states as aliens. The government was without power to raise money for the payment of its debts, unless the states willed to comply with its regulations. The United States were neither obeyed at home nor respected abroad. The disregard of law, which, for several years, had been manifested by the legislatures, appeared among the people, and in Massachusetts resulted in Shay’s Rebellion. It became apparent that the country was on the verge of civil war. The advocates of a strong government charged all these calamities to the Confederation, and declared that upon the success of their issues depended the perpetuity of the Union.

Constitution formed.—The constant aim of the Strong Government men was to reform the Articles of Confederation. The first definite act in this direction was in 1786, when the Assembly of Virginia “appointed commissioners to meet in convention to consider the question of commerce, with the view of altering the Articles of Confederation.” The commissioners were required to invite all the states to take part in the measure. The convention met at Annapolis, September 11th, 1786; but only five states being represented, a report was drawn up, urging the appointment of commissioners from all the states “to meet at Philadelphia on the second day of May next, to devise such other provisions as shall, to them, seem necessary to render the condition of the Federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and to report such an act for that purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as, when agreed to by them, and afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state, will effectually provide for the same.” When this report was made, the Strong Government leaders made vigorous efforts to secure a full representation, and the selection of delegates whose names would give importance to the convention. Congress, in order to sanction the report, recommended the legislatures to appoint delegates to meet in convention at Philadelphia, “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and report to Congress and the state legislatures.” The convention met at the appointed time, and continued its labors until September 17th. Instead of revising the Articles of Confederation, it formed a constitution and sent it to Congress to be submitted to that body and through the local legislatures to the people, the instrument providing that, if ratified by nine of the thirteen states, it should be binding upon those ratifying the same. Congress complied with the wish of the convention, and the constitution was soon before the people for adoption or rejection.